Davies Brothers Limited v Bond

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning an action for libel. The plaintiff, Frank Bond, sued Davies Brothers Limited, the proprietors of the Mercury newspaper, for a defamatory article published in their newspaper. The article contained statements of fact and comments based on those facts, which the plaintiff alleged were libellous.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the jury's finding that the comments in the article constituted fair comment on the public conduct of a public man should be upheld, and whether a new trial should be granted due to the inadequacy of the damages awarded by the jury. The jury had found a verdict for the plaintiff for one penny damages, specifically on the basis of one untrue statement of fact, while deeming the remaining commentary as fair criticism.

The High Court reasoned that the jury's finding of fair comment should not be disturbed. It applied the principle that whether comment is fair is a question of fact for the jury, and that comment must be founded on facts, not false allegations. The Court found that there was evidence before the jury that could justify their conclusion that the comments were fair, even if one specific factual allegation was found to be untrue. Furthermore, the Court held that a new trial should not be granted on the ground of inadequate damages in defamation cases, citing established legal precedent. The Supreme Court of Tasmania's decision ordering a new trial was reversed, and the motion for a new trial was dismissed.