Legal Research
Cases
Chapman v Allan

Chapman v Allan

Case [1999] SASC 460 4 November 1999

Publication

Defamation

Fair Comment

Liability for Defamation

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CHAPMAN & ORS V ALLAN & DRAPER
[1999] SASC 460

Full Court: Doyle CJ, Duggan and Lander JJ

1 DOYLE CJ and LANDER J. This is an appeal by a defendant (the second defendant) from a decision of a Judge of the District Court. The Judge awarded two of the plaintiffs in an action for defamation the sum of $50,000 each and an amount by way of interest.
2 This appeal seeks to overturn the finding that the second defendant defamed the first and second plaintiffs, and the award of damages which followed that finding. We will hereafter refer to the parties in their original capacities. On occasions it will be convenient to refer to the first and second plaintiffs as "the Chapmans". On occasion it will be convenient to refer to the second defendant as "Draper".
3 The three plaintiffs brought the action against the first defendant and Draper for damages for a libel contained in a weekly newspaper known as "Green Left Weekly".
4 The Chapmans are husband and wife and the parents of the third plaintiff.
5 The plaintiffs themselves, and in co-operation with Binalong Pty Ltd, are the developers of land at Hindmarsh Island in South Australia.
6 At this stage it suffices to say that the plaintiffs claimed that an article published in "Green Left Weekly" defamed them. They claimed that the article meant that they, in connection with the proposed construction of a bridge to Hindmarsh Island, had attempted to have the bridge constructed without obtaining proper planning approvals, and without following the required planning processes. They claimed that the article also meant that they had acted without regard to the protection of sites that were significant aboriginal heritage sites, and that they had acted in disregard of the interest of the aboriginal people in these sites, and that they had been part of a process that had defeated the rights and interests of the aboriginal people. We emphasise that this is just a summary.
The Pleadings
7 The Statement of Claim was amended, but for convenience we will refer to the Further Amended Statement of Claim as the Statement of Claim.
8 The plaintiffs' Statement of Claim alleged that the first defendant, Margaret Dianne Allan, carried on business as the publisher of a weekly newspaper known as "Green Left Weekly", which is disseminated throughout Australia. That matter is no longer in dispute. The first defendant took no part in the trial or in the appeal.
9 The Statement of Claim alleges that in issue number 266 of 12 March 1997, the "Green Left Weekly" included an article entitled "Hindmarsh Island: conspiracy against land rights". The Statement of Claim alleges that the article was described as "the cover story" and was purportedly written by "Carla Gordon".
10 The Statement of Claim sets out the whole of the article. The article is written in a manner that suggests that it is based on an interview with Draper. It includes quotations attributed to Draper. The article…

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 Chapman v Allan

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Allan [1999] SASC 460
Case: [1999] SASC 460
Decision Date: 4 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman & Ors v Allan & Ors is a case concerning a defamation claim brought against the second defendant, Neale Draper, for an article published in Green Left Weekly which the plaintiffs claimed was defamatory of them. The plaintiffs sought to prove that Draper was liable for the republication of the article by the first defendant, Margaret Allan, who was the publisher of the newspaper. The appeal against Draper was dismissed by the District Court and the plaintiffs were awarded $50,000 each in damages. The Full Court found that the District Court erred in finding that Draper was liable for the republication of the article. The Full Court found that the plaintiffs had not proved that Draper had spoken the words attributed to him in the article to Carla Gorton, or that he was liable for the republication of those words. The Full Court held that the Judge had erred in finding that Draper was liable for the republication of the article, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment against Draper and substituting an order that the action by the plaintiffs against Draper be dismissed.

Orders