Griffith v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an appeal from orders made by Levine J in a defamation proceeding. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. The dispute revolved around whether certain imputations conveyed by publications were reasonably capable of being conveyed, and consequently, whether the matter ought to have gone to a jury under s 7A(1) of the Defamation Act 1974.

The primary legal issue before the court was the proper construction of the defamatory imputations pleaded in the statement of claim and whether those imputations were capable of being conveyed by the published material. This involved a detailed examination of the language used in the publications and the context in which it appeared, to determine the ordinary and natural meaning that a reasonable reader would attribute to it. The court was required to assess whether the identified imputations were reasonably open to be found by a jury.

The court allowed the appeal in part, varying the orders of Levine J. The variations primarily concerned the inclusion and exclusion of specific imputations from the proceedings, reflecting an agreement between the parties on certain aspects. The court also struck out a paragraph of the amended statement of claim relating to republication but granted leave to replead this allegation. The orders addressed the costs of the appeal and specific issues, including the republication issue and the costs related to different matters complained of by the respective respondents.