Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

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.