Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1984] FCA 167
•19 Jun 1984
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 167
[1984] FCA 167
19 Jun 1984
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd and Jeffrey Robert Thomson initiated proceedings against Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, seeking damages for alleged contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The respondents published two articles in "The Weekend Australian" and "The Australian" newspapers that the applicants alleged were defamatory and misleading or deceptive. The respondents contended that the publication of statements, including opinions, in the ordinary course of news did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Act. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the publication of news, including opinions, could constitute misleading or deceptive conduct.
The Court held that the publication of incorrect information may constitute misleading or deceptive conduct if the conduct contains or conveys a misrepresentation. The Court found that the meaning of the published words is of considerable importance in determining whether the conduct is misleading or deceptive. The Court concluded that the respondents' assertion that the publication of statements, including opinions, in the ordinary course of news could not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Act was incorrect.
The Court answered question (ii) in the affirmative, stating that the publication of statements, including opinions, made in the ordinary course of the publication of news in those parts of a newspaper which are not advertising material can constitute conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of s.52 of the Act. The Court answered question (iii)(a) "Yes" and question (iii)(b) "Yes, if the matters in paragraphs 3 and 13 of the Case are established." No other questions should be answered. The respondents must pay the applicants their taxed costs of and incidental to the proceedings in relation to the Case Stated, as agreed and recorded in the Case Stated.
The Court held that the publication of incorrect information may constitute misleading or deceptive conduct if the conduct contains or conveys a misrepresentation. The Court found that the meaning of the published words is of considerable importance in determining whether the conduct is misleading or deceptive. The Court concluded that the respondents' assertion that the publication of statements, including opinions, in the ordinary course of news could not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Act was incorrect.
The Court answered question (ii) in the affirmative, stating that the publication of statements, including opinions, made in the ordinary course of the publication of news in those parts of a newspaper which are not advertising material can constitute conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of s.52 of the Act. The Court answered question (iii)(a) "Yes" and question (iii)(b) "Yes, if the matters in paragraphs 3 and 13 of the Case are established." No other questions should be answered. The respondents must pay the applicants their taxed costs of and incidental to the proceedings in relation to the Case Stated, as agreed and recorded in the Case Stated.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Competition Law
Legal Concepts
-
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
-
Misrepresentation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Chopsonion Pty Ltd (Controllers Appointed) v Watts Meat Machinery Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 4
Cases Citing This Decision
1,266
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd
[1982] HCA 44
Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd
[2007] NSWSC 69
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd
[1982] HCA 44
Cited Sections