Conlon v ADVERTISER - News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd - [2008] SADC 91

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
CONLON v ADVERTISER - NEWS WEEKEND PUBLISHING CO PTY LTD
[2008] SADC 91
Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan
18 July 2008
DEFAMATION
Claim for damages - statements published by defendant about politician plaintiff in two newspaper articles - whether inputation defamatory - natural and ordinary meaning of the words.
Assessment of damages - aggravated damages. Held: article defamatory - general damages awarded. No award of aggravated damages
Defamation Act 2005 s.32, referred to.
Farquahar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380 at 385 per Hunt J; Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1963] 1QB 234 at 277; Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 at 1240; Buick v Duncan (1986) 127 LSJS 277 at 281; Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 at 210; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 60; Brookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 at 1221; Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497 at 514, considered.

CONLON v ADVERTISER - NEWS WEEKEND PUBLISHING CO PTY LTD
[2008] SADC 91
A claim for damages for defamation.

The defendant publishes the Sunday Mail, South Australia’s only Sunday newspaper. Mr Rex Jory is a journalist who writes a regular column in it. He wrote two articles about Mr Patrick Conlon, a member of the South Australian Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. There were factual errors in the articles Mr Conlon claims that they defamed him and that he is entitled to damages for that defamation.
I must decide a number of issues: What is the meaning of each of the articles? Is the meaning defamatory? If so, to what damages is Mr Conlon entitled? Is he also entitled to aggravated damages? Before answering these questions I shall set out the relevant events leading up to the publication of the articles, describe the genre of Mr Jory’s column, and his interpretation of the articles at relevant times.
The story begins with a radio interview of another member of Parliament, Mr Leon Bignell. Mr Bignell’s first career was as a sports journalist employed by the ABC. That job involved his attending major sporting events in Australia and around the world, including the Olympic Games. But he changed his career, first, when he joined Mr Conlon’s staff and, next, when he won a seat in Parliament. By November 2006 he was the member for the seat of Mawson.
On Thursday 9 November 2006, Mr Bignell was interviewed on radio.   Part of the interview went like this:
“Interviewer: …   Its been six or seven months now that you’ve actually been an elected… member; What’s the difference like between there and being in the media?
Bignell: … A new challenge. Right through life I’ve kept changing jobs … I was with the ABC as their sports presenter … then I went off and became Patrick Conlon’s media adviser and then Chief of Staff …   He used to sit there and go ‘It’s the best job in the world, you go…

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 Conlon v ADVERTISER - News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Conlon v Advertiser News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2008] SADC 91
Case: [2008] SADC 91
Decision Date: 18 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conlon v Advertiser - News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd is a defamation case brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Conlon, against the defendants, the publisher of a newspaper and one of its journalists. Mr. Conlon sought to recover damages for defamation, alleging that the defendants published an article which implied he had engaged in corrupt conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the article in question conveyed a meaning that defamed Mr. Conlon by implying he had engaged in corrupt conduct. The court had to determine if the article's language and context led reasonable readers to believe that Mr. Conlon was corrupt. This involved interpreting the article's content, assessing the meaning conveyed to an ordinary reader, and examining whether the imputations made were defamatory.

The court examined the language of the article, the context in which it was published, and the ordinary reader's likely understanding. It concluded that the article did not convey a meaning that Mr. Conlon had engaged in corrupt conduct. The court found that the article's language and context did not lead a reasonable reader to believe that Mr. Conlon was corrupt. Consequently, the court held that the article did not defame Mr. Conlon and dismissed his claim.

The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the article's content and the assessment of its meaning to an ordinary reader. The court held that the article did not convey the defamatory meaning Mr. Conlon alleged. The case was dismissed, and Mr. Conlon's claim for defamation was rejected.

Orders