Legal Research
Cases
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

Case [1996] SASC 5431 29 January 1996

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COURT IN THE IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA DOYLE CJ(1), PERRY(2) AND WILLIAMS(3) JJ

CWDS
Defamation - publication - defamation - statements amounting to defamation - particular statements - newspaper articles - Royal Commission proceedings - purported resolution of ambiguities in evidence by newspaper defamatory - protocol to determine defamation on the pleadings outlined - "fair and accurate" defence under s7 of the Wrongs Act discussed. Wrongs Act s7 referred to. Prichard v Krantz (1989) 37 SASR 379, considered.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 6-7 November 1995 #DATE 29:1:1996 #ADD 11:3:1996

Counsel for appellant: Mr J Sacker QC with him Mr A Harris

Solicitors for appellant: Lawson Downs

Counsel for respondent: Mr P Heywood-Smith with
Mr R Bradshaw

Solicitors for respondent: Johnston Withers

ORDER
Special damages not awarded.

JUDGE1 DOYLE CJ In this appeal the appellant, Advertiser Newspapers Ltd, challenges a judgment in which the appellant was found liable to the respondent for defamation. I will refer to the appellant as the defendant or as "The Advertiser", and I will refer to the respondent as the plaintiff.

2. These proceedings arose out of two articles published by "The Advertiser". They were published on 15 July 1992 and 18 July 1992. I will refer to them as "the first article" and the "second article" respectively.

3. These articles were concerned with the proceedings of the Royal Commission that had been appointed to investigate the near collapse of the State Bank and its various associated companies. One of these companies was Beneficial Finance Corporation ("BFC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Bank. On 14 July the Commission heard evidence from Mr D W Simmons, who had been Chairman of BFC and also Chairman of the Board of the State Bank. The first article related to that evidence. On 17 July the Royal Commissioner made public extracts from Mr Simmons' diaries that had been received in evidence by the Royal Commission. The second article related to this and other material.

4. At the time dealt with in the testimony and the diary extracts, the plaintiff was a senior executive of BFC. At that time, Mr Baker was the managing director of BFC. The plaintiff was one of a small group of executives who were next in seniority to him. Others in that position included Mr Reichert and Mr Martin.

5. The plaintiff was mentioned in both articles. He brought an action in defamation against the respondent.

The articles and the evidence 6. The first article began on the front page of the Advertiser, with a prominent headline, "Bannon accused on resignations". The article was as follows:
    The Premier, Mr Bannon, misled Parliament over the
    resignation of Beneficial Finance Corporation Chief Mr John
    Baker in August,2 1990, according to evidence before the
    State Bank Royal Commission.

Former bank chairman Mr David Simmons admitted yesterday the
    public reason given for the resignation of Mr Baker and his
    deputy, Mr Erich Reichert, was not right and Mr Bannon knew
    the real reason.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

Details

AGLC: Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1996] SASC 5431
Case: [1996] SASC 5431
Decision Date: 29 January 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the liability of the respondent, Advertiser Newspapers Ltd, for defamation arising from two articles published on 15 and 18 July 1992. The plaintiff, Mr Chakravarti, claimed damages for the imputation that he was involved in criminal or civil misconduct as an executive of Beneficial Finance Corporation. The trial judge held that the articles were defamatory and awarded damages of $250,000. The respondent appealed on the grounds that the articles were fair and accurate reports of the proceedings before the Royal Commission and that the trial judge had misapplied the principles of defamation. The Full Court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $85,000. The trial judge had erred in finding that the articles were defamatory as they did not convey the meanings pleaded by the plaintiff. The articles only imputed suspicion of misconduct, not guilt. The articles were fair and accurate reports of the Royal Commission proceedings and were protected by s 7 of the Wrongs Act. The Full Court held that the articles were defamatory as to certain imputations but not others. The articles were not fair and accurate reports as to those imputations. The Full Court assessed the damages at $85,000, taking into account the privileged imputations. The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal for an increase in damages.

Orders