ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Defamation-Libel-Statement - as to class of persons-Necessary reference to plaintiff
On the hearing of an action for libel in respect of a statement in a newspaper report of a public meeting, that one of the speakers had said of an association of returned soldiers opposed to conscription that it " ' was only about 100 Sept. 9, 13.
strong, and these individuals had been sent back to Australia as undesirables, evidence had beengiven to the effect that the association had about 1,000 mem bers of whom the plaintiff was one. The jury having found that the words complained of were defamatory but that they did not refer to the plaintiff, a new trial had been granted on the ground that the words were not capable of any other meaning than that they referred to the plaintiff.
Held, that, on the evidence, the words were reasonably capable of meaning that about 100 men, whom the speaker believed to be all the members who composed the association, were undesirables that with such a meaning they did not necessarily refer to the plaintiff, and, therefore, that the verdict of the jury should stand.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria reversed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
An action was brought in the Supreme Court by James Richard Canavan against David Syme &Co. and Thomas Prosser, the
proprietors and printer respectively of the Age newspaper, claiming H. C. OF damages for libel. The material words complained of as being a libel appeared in the issue of the Age of 12th December 1917, in a DAVID report of the proceedings at a public meeting, and were as follows :-
Sergeant Wallish, D.C.M., on rising to speak was loudly cheered. He said that the Returned Soldiers' No-Conscription League was only about 100 strong, and these individuals had been sent back to Australia as undesirables (Cheers)." The action was remitted for hearing to the County Court, and was heard in the County Court at Melbourne before a jury. At the hearing evidence was given for the plaintiff that the Returned Soldiers' No-Conscrip- tion League had been formed on 19th November 1917, and that there were about 1,000 members, of whom the plaintiff was one. The jury found that the words were defamatory, but that they did not refer to the plaintiff. A verdict was thereupon entered for the defendants. The plaintiff applied for a new trial to the learned Judge of the County Court before whom the hearing took place, and he made an order for a new trial, holding that the words complained of were not capable of any other meaning than that they referred to the plaintiff. On an appeal by the defendants to the Supreme Court from that decision, the Full Court, by a majority (Hood and Cussen JJ., Irvine C.J. dissenting), dismissed the appeal.
From that decision the defendants now, by…
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 David Syme & Co v Canavan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
David Syme & Co v Canavan [1918] HCA 50
Case
[1918] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning an action for libel. The plaintiff, James Richard Canavan, sued David Syme & Co. and Thomas Prosser, the proprietors and printer of *The Age* newspaper, respectively. The alleged libel was contained in a newspaper report of a public meeting, stating that a speaker had claimed the Returned Soldiers' No-Conscription League was "only about 100 strong, and these individuals had been sent back to Australia as undesirables." The jury in the County Court found the words defamatory but that they did not refer to the plaintiff. A new trial was granted by the County Court Judge, a decision upheld by a majority of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the jury's finding that the words complained of did not refer to the plaintiff was one that reasonable men could have reached. Specifically, the court had to determine if the statement, in its context and given the evidence presented, was capable of being interpreted in a way that did not necessarily identify the plaintiff, despite the plaintiff being a member of the League. This involved considering the meaning of "these individuals" within the statement and whether it referred to the entire League or a subset of its members.
The High Court, by majority, allowed the appeal. The reasoning focused on the principle that the meaning of words and their reference to a plaintiff are questions of fact for the jury. The court held that the jury was entitled to consider the evidence that the League had approximately 1,000 members, and that the statement referred to "about 100 strong." Given this discrepancy, and the fact that the plaintiff was not specifically named, the jury could reasonably conclude that the statement referred to a specific group of about 100 individuals, not necessarily including the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court noted that a previous edition of *The Age* had reported the plaintiff stating the League had 1,000 members, which readers of the libel might have recalled, reinforcing the idea that "about 100" did not encompass the entire membership. Therefore, the jury's verdict that the words did not refer to the plaintiff was a reasonable one and should be upheld.
The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria and the order for a new trial be discharged, and the original verdict and judgment for the defendants be restored. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.