Goding v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [1965] HCA 33

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kitto, Taylor and Menzies JJ.

GODING v. QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD.

(1965) 113 CLR 170

16 July 1965

Interrogatories (Q.)

Interrogatories (Q.)—Practice—Discretion in Rules of Court to allow by special order further interrogatories—Nature of discretion conferred—Principle or standard by &hich exercise of discretion governed—The Rules of the Supreme Court (Q.)—Order XXXV, r. 1.

Decision

July 16.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
The appellants brought an action against the respondent for damages for defamation in respect of the publication in "The Courier-Mail" newspaper of an article headed "This is Facsimile Voting . . . As Used - and Abused - in union polls and plebiscites". The defences raised include publication in good faith - (i) for the public good, (ii) to give information to readers, and (iii) in the course of, and for the purpose of, the discussion of matters of public interest. (at p173)

2. Upon a summons for directions, an order was made inter alia for the delivery of interrogatories and, pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs delivered a set of interrogatories for the examination of the defendant. By its answer the defendant, upon grounds stated, objected to answering most of these interrogatories. The plaintiffs sought an order for further answers and Lucas A.J. ordered further and better answers to some, but not all, of the interrogatories. This order was discharged upon appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. There followed an application to this Court for special leave to appeal. The hearing of that application was adjourned to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to apply to the Supreme Court for leave to deliver further interrogatories. This course was followed in that the plaintiffs sought leave to make particular amendments to the interrogatories already delivered or, alternatively, a special order for leave to deliver a further set of interrogatories framed, as we were informed, so as to accord with what was said in the judgments of the members of the Full Court upon the appeal from Lucas A.J. Wanstall J. declined to entertain the application and from his Honour's order special leave to appeal to this Court was granted. $P The reason why the plaintiffs sought "a special order" for liberty to interrogate further was because of the terms of the proviso to O. XXXV, r. 1, of The Rules of the Supreme Court of Queensland which relates inter alia to the delivery of interrogatories. The proviso is in these terms: "Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without a special order for that purpose". This proviso had been considered by the Full Court in Kraft v. McAnulty (1929) QWN 22 and it was there laid down that an application for leave to deliver a further set of interrogatories must "show cogent reasons which satisfy the mind of the Judge in chambers that he should authorize a deliberate departure from the recognized general rule of practice" that only one set of interrogatories may be…

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 Goding v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Goding v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1965] HCA 33
Case: [1965] HCA 33
Decision Date: 16 July 1965

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland in favour of the respondent, Mr Goding. The dispute concerned the publication of an article by the appellant which Mr Goding alleged was defamatory.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd in respect of the defamatory article. This required the court to determine if the occasion of publication was one of qualified privilege, and if so, whether the appellant had acted with malice in publishing the material.

The High Court held that the occasion of publication was not one of qualified privilege. Their Honours reasoned that while there was a duty to inform the public on matters of public interest, the newspaper's conduct in publishing the article went beyond what was reasonably required for the discharge of that duty. The court found that the newspaper had not acted with reasonable care and diligence in verifying the truth of the statements made in the article, and that the publication was not made in good faith for the public benefit. Consequently, the defence of qualified privilege was not established.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland was affirmed.

Orders