Connolly v Sunday Times Publishing Co Limited and E W Finn

The case of Connolly v. Sunday Times Publishing Co Limited and E W Finn involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Patrick Andrew Connolly, had brought an action for defamation against the defendants, Sunday Times Publishing Co Limited and E W Finn. The core of the dispute concerned an article published by the defendants which accused the plaintiff of fraudulent conduct on the turf. The defendants pleaded truth as a defence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the presiding Judge at the trial had "good cause" to exercise his discretion to deprive the plaintiff, who had succeeded in the defamation action, of his costs. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Judge's inference from the jury's verdict, which awarded the plaintiff only one shilling in damages, constituted sufficient "good cause" to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

The court reasoned that Order 61, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court of Western Australia allowed a judge to order otherwise regarding costs for good cause. In this instance, the jury awarded the plaintiff one shilling in damages despite a highly aggravated libel and an extensive trial. The presiding Judge inferred from this minimal award that the jury held the plaintiff's character in contempt and considered the libel practically justified, even though the defence of truth was not fully established. The High Court held that this inference was a reasonable one for the Judge to draw and constituted "good cause" for depriving the plaintiff of his costs, as it indicated that the plaintiff's conduct and character, as revealed during the trial, did not warrant a full recovery of costs.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the order of the trial Judge to deprive the plaintiff of his costs.