Legal Research
Cases
Grundmann v Georgeson

Grundmann v Georgeson

Case [1996] QCA 189 18 June 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 189
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 117 of 1995

Brisbane

Before Davies JA

McPherson JA
Dowsett J

[Grundmann v. Georgeson]

BETWEEN:

DAVID GRUNDMANN

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

LAURENCE EDWIN GEORGESON

(Defendant) Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 117 of 1995

Brisbane

Before

Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Dowsett J.

[Grundmann v. Georgeson]

BETWEEN:

DAVID GRUNDMANN

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

LAURENCE EDWIN GEORGESON

(Defendant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered the 18th day of June 1996

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Dowsett J. Except to the

extent referred to below I am content to adopt his Honour's statement of the relevant facts giving

rise to these proceedings, of the course of litigation at trial, of the decision of the learned trial Judge

and of the arguments in this Court.

1. Did the publication identify the appellant?
The respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong in concluding that the

words published were published of and concerning the appellant. However, as the learned trial

Judge pointed out, the respondent's words were plainly published of and concerning the doctor

proposing to establish the abortion clinic referred to in the article and there were at the time of

publication a number of people in Central Queensland who knew that the appellant was the person

proposing to establish the clinic. Moreover the article in which the respondent's words appeared

identified the person proposing to establish the clinic as a doctor who has operated a similar

establishment in Townsville for the past four years. This would have identified the appellant to many

who would have recalled publicity given to raids on abortion clinics. I agree with the learned trial

Judge's reasons for concluding that the appellant was identified as the person referred to.[1]

[1] See Nicholson v. Seidler (1990) 5 B.R. 365.

2. Was it defamatory of him?
Of the meanings which the appellant said the publication had, I agree with his Honour that it

could not have meant that the appellant practised genocide. Both the learned trial Judge and

Dowsett J. also concluded that the publication, in particular of the statement that termination of pregnancy was just a nice way of saying murder, was not capable of carrying any of the meanings

that the appellant had committed murder or had unlawfully killed or that he had no respect for human

life.

The learned trial Judge thought that no hypothetical referee of the kind referred to in the

authorities[2] would understand the words to bear any of those meanings because, in the context of

[2] His Honour referred to Reader's Digest Services Pty. Ltd. v. Lamb (1992) 150

the "hyperbole of the abortion debate" they would be "understood to express a point of view on an

issue of morality or philosophy; but not to mean that the plaintiff was a murderer or anything like it".

Dowsett…

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 Grundmann v Georgeson

Details

AGLC: Grundmann v Georgeson [1996] QCA 189
Case: [1996] QCA 189
Decision Date: 18/06/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grundmann v Georgeson is a case where the appellant, a medical practitioner, sought to open a fertility control clinic, while the respondent was a newspaper publisher. The central issue in the case was whether the newspaper article published by the respondent contained defamatory imputations attributed to the appellant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues at hand primarily revolved around the interpretation of the defamatory statements in the article and the applicability of the defences available to the respondent.

The court was tasked with determining if the statements in the article indeed conveyed defamatory imputations about the appellant. This involved examining the language of the article and understanding the context in which the imputations were made. The court also had to consider whether the imputations, if defamatory, were fair and accurate comments on matters of public interest. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the validity of any defences presented by the respondent, such as truth or qualified privilege.

The court found that the article contained defamatory imputations about the appellant. It was determined that the statements in question suggested the appellant had engaged in unethical and potentially illegal activities. The court held that these imputations were not fair and accurate comments on matters of public interest. Additionally, the respondent failed to successfully argue any of the available defences. The court concluded that the defamatory nature of the statements outweighed any potential benefits of their publication. Consequently, the appellant's claim for defamation was upheld.

The court ordered the respondent to pay damages to the appellant for the defamation suffered. Additionally, an injunction was granted to prevent the respondent from publishing similar statements in the future. The court's decision emphasised the importance of responsible journalism and the need to protect individuals from false and harmful statements, particularly in matters of professional reputation.

Orders