Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWSC 1340

CITATION: Cross v Qld Newspapers Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 1340
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 09/10/06, 10/10/06, 11/10/06, 12/10/06, 13/10/06, 16/10/06, 17/10/06, 18/10/06, 19/10/06, 20/10/06, 23/10/06, 24/10/06, 25/10/06, 26/10/06, 27/10/06, 30/10/06, 31/10/06, 01/11/06, 02/11/06, 03/11/06, 06/11/06, 07/11/06, 08/11/06, 09/11/06, 10/11/06, 14/11/06, 15/11/06, 16/11/06,17/11/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 December 2006

JURISDICTION: COMMON LAW - Defamation List

JUDGMENT OF: Cooper AJ at 1

DECISION: Judgment in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff on each of the imputations sued upon.

CATCHWORDS: Substantial truth

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)
Defamation Act 1889 (QLD)

PARTIES: Ronald Malcolm Cross
Queensland Newspapers Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20191/03

COUNSEL:
Mr C Evatt/ Ms J Rawlings for Plaintiff
Mr J.S. Wheelhouse SC / Mr M Richardson for Defendant

SOLICITORS: Richard Licardy & Co Solicitors & Attorneys-at-law for Plaintiff
Thynne & Macartney (Brisbane)
Kemp Strang (Sydney agents) for Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 20191/03

- 129 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

COOPER AJ

WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2006

20191/03 RONALD MALCOLM CROSS v QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 HIS HONOUR: In this action the plaintiff sues to recover damages on the grounds of defamation in respect of articles published in New South Wales and Queensland in the Courier Mail Newspapers in which the defendant is the proprietor.

2 The first article was published on 20 June 2003 and is entitled “Marketeer aims for the South”. A copy is annexed and marked “A”. The paragraphs have been numbered for convenience.

3 The second article was published on 1 July 2003 and is entitled “Coast Marketeer targeted in raid”. A copy is annexed hereto and marked “B”. Here again the paragraphs have been numbered for the sake of convenience.

4 On 21 October 2004 the jury found the following imputations to be carried and to be defamatory, namely:-

First publication:
1. The plaintiff ripped off Mum and Dad Investors by selling them investment properties at exorbitant prices.

2. The plaintiff is a law breaker who ripped off his employees.

Second publication:
3. That the plaintiff is a law breaker.

5 By way of letter dated 27 September 2006, exhibit 1, the plaintiff’s solicitors advised that imputations 2 and 3 would not be pressed. At the commencement of the hearing of this case on 9 October 2006 verdict and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant in respect of those imputations.

6 The defences raised in response to the claim are now set out.

7 The first publication is defensible in New South Wales because:-

Defamation Act

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 Cross v Queensland Newspapers 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: [2006] NSWSC 1340
Decision Date: 6 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Cross, and the defendant, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, regarding a defamatory article published by the latter. The article, published in a newspaper, was alleged to have caused significant harm to Cross's reputation and professional standing. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legal principles governing defamation in the context of substantial truth as a defence.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the meaning and application of the defence of substantial truth in defamation cases. The primary focus was on whether the defendant could successfully argue that the defamatory material was substantially true, thereby mitigating or negating liability for damages. Another issue was the extent to which the court should consider the context in which the statement was made and its impact on the plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, the court needed to clarify the scope of the defence and its relationship with the principle of proportionality in defamation law.

In its judgment, the court held that the defence of substantial truth is available in defamation cases but must be applied with caution. The court emphasised that the defence requires a rigorous examination of the truth of the defamatory statement in its entirety, not just in isolated parts. The court further clarified that the substantial truth defence must be balanced against the harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation. The High Court stressed that the defendant must demonstrate that the truth of the defamatory material substantially outweighed any harm to the plaintiff. The court also noted the importance of considering the context in which the statement was made and its impact on the plaintiff's reputation. Ultimately, the court ruled that the defendant's argument for substantial truth was not substantiated in this case, leading to a finding in favour of the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court included a determination that Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd was liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages to Cross. The court did not specify the amount of damages but left it to be assessed in a subsequent proceeding. The decision underscored the high threshold for the substantial truth defence and reinforced the protection of individuals' reputations in the face of defamatory publications.

Orders