Cunningham v Ryan

In an action for libel brought by Thomas Joseph Ryan against the editor, proprietors, printer, and publisher of the Argus newspaper, the defendants, Edward S. Cunningham and others, sought to have a verdict and judgment entered in their favour. The case was tried before Isaacs J. and a jury, who were asked to answer a series of specific questions relating to defamation, comment, the facts supporting comment, reasonableness of comment, bona fides, and damages.

The legal issues before the court were whether a verdict for the defendants should be entered, and if so, whether judgment should be entered accordingly. This required the court to determine if a final verdict had been reached by the jury, and if the jury, having been discharged due to disagreement, could still be considered to have delivered a verdict that could be recorded. A further issue was whether the judge was always obliged to inform the jury that they were entitled to give a general verdict without answering specific questions.

Isaacs J., whose decision was affirmed on appeal, reasoned that no final verdict had been reached by the jury. He explained that the jury had indicated their answers were tentative and that they were unable to agree on any final conclusion. The court's role was to accept and record a verdict, and until that point, the jury retained the liberty to change their minds. The judge also noted that he was not always bound to inform the jury of their right to give a general verdict, particularly when specific questions were deemed appropriate for the circumstances of the case to ensure a reasoned outcome and to avoid potential legal difficulties in the event of a general verdict.

The Full Court, affirming the judgment of Isaacs J., held that there was no final verdict by the jury and therefore no basis for entering a verdict or judgment for the defendants. The court applied the principle that until a verdict is definitely accepted by the court and recorded, the jury is at liberty to change their minds. The jury's inability to agree on any verdict, even after multiple attempts to clarify their findings and reconsider their positions, meant that they were discharged without a verdict having been delivered or recorded.