Charlwood Industries Pty Ltd v Brent

Charlwood Industries Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a jury verdict in a defamation proceeding brought against Brent (the respondent). The jury had found that the matter complained of conveyed an imputation that the appellant lied to its customers, but that this imputation was not defamatory of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the jury's finding that the imputation was not defamatory was perverse, given their finding that the imputation was conveyed. The Court also considered the principles governing when a jury verdict might be a compromise and whether, in such circumstances, it should order a retrial of both issues. Further, the Court examined its power to direct a verdict and the circumstances under which it would exercise its discretion under s 108(3) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* to order a new trial.

The Court reasoned that a finding that an imputation of lying was conveyed, but was not defamatory, could be perverse if it was not reasonably open to the jury on the evidence. The Court considered that the imputation of lying to customers was inherently damaging to a business's reputation and that the jury's finding that it was not defamatory was not reasonably open. Consequently, the Court concluded that the jury's verdict on both the imputation and its defamatory nature was flawed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in part, setting aside the jury's verdict that the imputation was not defamatory and also setting aside the verdict that the imputation was conveyed. A new trial with a jury was ordered concerning both questions. The respondent was ordered to pay 65% of the costs of the appeal and was to have a certificate under the *Suitor's Fund Act* if otherwise entitled.