Dun v Macintosh

The case of *Dun v Macintosh* concerned a defamation action brought by the plaintiff, Dun, against the defendants, Macintosh and others, who operated a trade protection agency. The dispute arose from a report published by the defendants concerning the creditworthiness of the plaintiff's business. The plaintiff alleged that the report was defamatory and that the defendants had acted with malice in publishing it. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on cross-appeals following a trial.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the occasion of the publication of the report was privileged, and if so, whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving malice on the part of the defendants. The court also considered the admissibility of evidence relating to a subsequent report published by the defendants, and whether a new trial should be ordered.

The High Court, comprising Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ., considered the nature of the occasion upon which the report was published. It was held that a report by a trade protection agency to its subscribers concerning the credit of a business firm is generally a privileged occasion. However, this privilege is defeated if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant acted with malice. The court examined the evidence presented, including the subsequent report, to determine if it shed light on the defendants' state of mind at the time of the original publication. The onus of proving malice rested on the plaintiff.

The court's decision addressed the specific circumstances of the case, including the admissibility of the later report as evidence of malice and the principles governing new trials. The final orders of the court would have determined the outcome of the defamation claim and the disposition of the appeals.