Bristow v Adams

In *Bristow v Adams*, the appeal concerned a defamation claim where the appellant, Bristow, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the trial judge. The respondent, Adams, sought to rely on a notice of contention filed out of time. The appeal raised fundamental questions regarding the presumption of harm in defamation cases in Australian law, the proper approach to assessing damages when a claim is dismissed, and whether a claim could be dismissed as an abuse of process at the appellate stage.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether an Australian defamation action carries a presumption of harm upon proof of publication, the circumstances in which a trial judge should consider all arguments despite dismissing a claim, and whether it was open to the defendant to argue for dismissal of the proceedings as an abuse of process on appeal. The court also had to determine whether to grant leave to the respondent to rely on its notice of contention filed outside the prescribed time limits, which raised a novel point on appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial judge's verdict and judgment for the defendant. The court found that the overwhelming weight of authority supported the appellant's position on a point of fundamental principle, indicating that the presumption of harm in defamation cases, as discussed in cases like *Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick* and *Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Fitzpatrick*, was applicable. Consequently, the court entered a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000. Leave was refused for the respondent to rely on its notice of contention. Given the circumstances, including the costs of the appeal potentially exceeding the amount in dispute, the court made no order for the costs of the appeal, meaning each party was to bear their own costs.