Haklane v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 341

CITATION: Haklane & Ors v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 341

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20904 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 26 April 2002

PARTIES :

JOHN HAKLANE
(First PLaintiff)
ROSE HAKLANE
(Second Plaintiff)
GEORGE HAKLANE
(Third Plaintiff)
STEVEN HAKLANE
(Fourth Plaintiff)
ANTHONY HAKLANE
(Fifth Plaintiff)
NAHA ERDAM
(Sixth Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
B McClintock S.C.
(Plaintiffs)
T Blackburn
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Gilbert & Tobin
(Plaintiffs)
Freehills
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Identification - "class" - "family" - imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden (1998) 45 NSWLR 158
Bazdaric and Ors v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd, unreported, Levine J, 10 June 1994
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Knuppfer v London Express Newspapers Ltd [1944] AC 116
McCormick v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and Anor (1989) 16 NSWLR 485

DECISION: See paragraph 23

- 1 -

djl: 1

[2002] NSWSC 341

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
defamation list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 26 APRIL 2002

20904 OF 2001

JOHN HAKLANE
(First Plaintiff)

ROSE HAKLANE
(Second Plaintiff)

GEORGE HAKLANE
(Third Plaintiff)

STEVEN HAKLANE
(Fourth Plaintiff)

ANTHONY HAKLANE
(Fifth Plaintiff)

NAHA ERDAM
(Sixth Plaintiff)

v

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Identification –

“class”

–

“family”

– imputations - capacity – form – difference in substance)

1 The six plaintiffs, by Statement of Claim filed on 15 November 2001, sue the defendant for damages for defamation.

2 The matter complained of is an article published in the “The Sydney Morning Herald” on the 29 June 2001 with the headline “Woman murdered only months after being abducted”. The article also contains a photograph of police at the crime scene and a photograph of the deceased, Julie Haklane. The text of the matter contained of is appended to these reasons.

3 The plaintiffs in the Particulars of Identification describe themselves thus:

“(i) The First and Second Plaintiffs are the father and mother of the late Julie Haklane;

(ii) The Third, Fourth and Fifth Plaintiffs are the brothers and sisters respectively of the late Julie Haklane;

(iii) By reason of their relation to the late Julie Haklane, the Plaintiffs are known as members of her family;

(iv) The Plaintiffs are well known by friends, family as well as throughout the Sydney Lebanese community as members of the late Julie Haklane’s family.

(v) The Plaintiffs are known to friends, family and the Sydney Lebanese community as being part of the late Julie Haklane’s family;

(vi) The Sixth Plaintiff’s maiden name is Haklane and she resides at the Haklane family residence”.

4 The plaintiffs allege that the matter complained of carries the following defamatory imputations of each of them;

“5(a) that the Plaintiff is a criminal;

(b) that the Plaintiff is connected to the underworld;

(c) that the plaintiff associates with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haklane v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 341
Decision Date: 26 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Haklane versus John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from articles published in the Herald newspaper. The plaintiff, Haklane, sought to establish that the articles had made imputations about her which implied she belonged to a class or family of people who were criminals, thereby affecting her reputation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff's primary contention was that the articles had imputed negative characteristics to her, suggesting she was associated with criminal activities, which was damaging to her personal and professional standing. The defendant, Fairfax, argued that the articles were factual and did not make such imputations.

The court was required to determine whether the articles contained imputations that the plaintiff belonged to a "class" or "family" of criminals, and whether these imputations were of such a nature that they would be understood by readers to have a damaging effect on the plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, the court needed to assess the difference in substance between the concepts of "class" and "family" in this context, and whether the imputations made were sufficiently severe to be defamatory. The court also had to consider whether the imputations were in a capacity that would cause harm to the plaintiff's reputation.

The court found that the articles did not contain imputations that the plaintiff belonged to a class or family of criminals. The words used, while critical, did not imply any affiliation with criminal activities or a negative stereotype. The court emphasised the distinction between the imputations made and the capacity in which they were understood. It concluded that the imputations, even if defamatory, did not meet the threshold of implying membership in a criminal class or family. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding no liability for defamation. The court's decision hinged on the precise wording of the articles and the context in which they were published.

Orders