Coleman v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 564

CITATION: COLEMAN & ANOR V JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 564

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. I find the matter complained of incapable as a matter of law of defaming the plaintiffs in terms of the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim. ; 2. There will be a verdict for the defendant in respect of each of the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim.; 3. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs.

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - capacity - matter complained of incapable of being understood otherwise than as humerous - no libel

CASES CITED: Anderson v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 99
Darbyshir v Daily Examiner Pty Ltd (Levine J, unreported, 29 August 1997)
Donoghue v Hayes (1831) Hayes (Ir Ex) R 265
Falkenberg v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (NSWSC, unreported, 16 December 1994)
Galea v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (Levine J, unreported, 20 February 1998)
Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 410
Graham Charles Evans v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd [1993] ACTSC 7
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1983) 2 NSWLR 664
Livingstone-Thomas v Associated Newspapers (1969) 90 WN (NSW) Pt 1,223
in May Wan Khor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [1999] VSC 38
McGuinness v J T Publishing Australia (Levine J, unreported, 21 May 1999)
Ron Hodgson (Trading Pty Ltd) v Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 472
Waterhouse v Perkins & Ors (SCNSW, unreported, 10 October 1996)
Wild v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (Levine J, unreported 8 August 1997)
Youssupoff v Metro Goldwyn Meyer Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 5A1

PARTIES :

CRAIG COLEMAN
(First plaintiff)
CAROL COLEMAN
(Second plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 003 357 720)
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20456 OF 2002

COUNSEL:
M Richardson
(Plaintiffs)
T Blackburn
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Gilbert & Tobin
(Plaintiffs)
Freehills
(Defendant)

[2003] NSWSC 564

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE 2003

20456 OF 2002

CRAIG COLEMAN
(First plaintiff)

CAROL COLEMAN
(Second plaintiff)

v
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
(ACN 003 357 720)
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT (Imputations – capacity – matter complained of incapable of being understood otherwise than as humerous – no libel)

1 The plaintiffs sue the defendant in relation to an article published in “The Sun Herald” on 29 September 2002. The text of the matter complained of as pleaded is Appendix A to these reasons.

2 It is contended that the matter complained of carries the following imputations of the respective plaintiffs:

5(a) that the First Plaintiff suffers ongoing psychological harm and mental problems;

(b) that the First Plaintiff was an incompetent professional football coach in that he lacked communication skills;

(c) that the First Plaintiff was incompetent as a professional football coach because of his inadequate upbringing;

(d) that the First…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coleman v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 564
Decision Date: 25 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Coleman and another, brought an action against the defendant, a media publisher, for libel. The plaintiffs alleged that an article published by the defendant contained defamatory imputations about them. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs claimed that the article implied they were involved in criminal activity and had a corrupt relationship with a politician. The defendant denied that the article was defamatory and argued that any reasonable reader would understand the matter complained of as humorous and not as a serious allegation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the article contained defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs. The court had to consider whether the matter complained of was capable of being understood otherwise than as humorous. If the court found that the matter was inherently humorous and not defamatory, the plaintiffs' claim would fail. The court also had to consider the context in which the article was published, including the relationship between the plaintiffs and the subjects of the article, and the general tone of the publication.

The court held that the matter complained of in the article was inherently humorous and could not be understood otherwise. The court found that the article was a satirical piece, and any reasonable reader would have understood it as a humorous commentary rather than a serious allegation. The court noted that the plaintiffs were public figures and that the article was published in a newspaper known for its satirical content. The court also considered the relationship between the plaintiffs and the subjects of the article, and found that the article was not an attack on the plaintiffs' character or reputation. The court concluded that the article did not contain any defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the action. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were frivolous and vexatious, and that the defendant was entitled to protection from such claims. The court emphasised the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the media from unjustified litigation.

Orders