Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd No. Scgrg-92-1688 Judgment No. S6901 - [1998] SASC 6901

CHAKRAVARTI v ADVERTISER NEWSPAPERS LTD

[1998] SASC 6901

Full Court: Doyle CJ, Perry and Williams JJ

DOYLE CJ AND PERRY J. The High Court of Australia, after hearing an appeal from this Court, has remitted two matters to this Court. First, a cross-appeal by the plaintiff (we will describe the parties by their original designation) to this Court against the assessment of damages by the trial judge. The damages, described by the trial judge as general damages, were awarded for the publication by the defendant of two libels. The cross-appeal complains that the amount awarded is manifestly inadequate. Second, one ground of an appeal by the defendant to this Court. This ground appeals against the amount awarded by the trial judge for what the trial judge described as “special damages”. The defendant submits that the amount awarded is manifestly excessive.
In short, this Court must now consider the plaintiff’s complaint that the amount awarded for general damages was inadequate, and the defendant’s complaint that the amount awarded for special damages was excessive.
Each of these matters is remitted to this Court for “... hearing and determination in accordance with the reasons of ...” the High Court.
Before proceeding to deal with the matters remitted to this Court, it is necessary to summarise the circumstances giving rise to the remitter. It is necessary also to explain and to put in context the issues that fall for decision.

A claim for defamation

The defendant is the publisher of The Advertiser newspaper. The Advertiser is published in Adelaide each day of the week other than Sunday. The Advertiser circulates throughout the State of South Australia. It is the only daily newspaper published in this State. It has a substantial circulation.
The trial judge found that two articles published in The Advertiser on 15 July 1992 and 18 July 1992 defamed the plaintiff. We will refer to them as “the first article” and as “the second article” respectively.
The articles reported part of the proceedings of a Royal Commission appointed to investigate the near collapse of the State Bank of South Australia (“the State Bank”) and of companies associated with the State Bank. One of those 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.
At the time dealt with in the testimony and in the diary extracts, the plaintiff was a senior executive of BFC. Mr Baker was then the Managing Director of BFC. The plaintiff was one of a small group of executives who were next in seniority to Mr Baker. The plaintiff was mentioned in both articles.
The text…

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 No. Scgrg-92-1688 Ju...

Details

AGLC: Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd No. Scgrg-92-1688 Judgment No. S6901 [1998] SASC 6901
Case: [1998] SASC 6901
Decision Date: 14 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was required to reassess the damages awarded by the trial judge in a defamation case. The High Court had previously determined that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on both articles in question, and had found that certain imputations were made out. The Full Court was tasked with determining whether the amount awarded for "special damages" was manifestly excessive, and whether the amount awarded for "general damages" was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the findings of fact made by the trial judge and the imputations identified by the High Court. After careful consideration, the Full Court determined that the award of general damages was manifestly inadequate and increased the amount to $796,000 inclusive of interest to the date of the original trial judgment.

The Full Court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the assessment of damages for "special damages". The court held that the plaintiff's cross-appeal against the award of general damages should be allowed and varied the judgment of the trial judge to provide for an award of damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $796,000 inclusive of interest to 27 April 1995.

Orders