Hall v Fairfax Media Ltd - [2017] NSWSC 1271

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hall v Fairfax Media Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1271
Hearing dates: 14 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Imputation (a) will go to the jury; imputations (c), (d) and (e) struck out with leave to re-plead.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – pleadings – objections to imputations – capacity – form – self-referentiality of imputations which confuse the meaning of the words with their likely or possible impact on the reader
Cases Cited: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited [2013] NSWSC 1306
Toben v Mathieson [2013] NSWSC 1530
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Peter James Hall (plaintiff)
Fairfax Media Ltd (first defendant)
Anthony Boyd (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Polden (plaintiff)
C Amato (defendants)
Solicitors:
Resolve Litigation Lawyers (plaintiff)
Banki Haddock Fiora (defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/149864
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Peter Hall arising out of an article published by Fairfax Media. This judgment determines objections to the pleadings raised by the defendants at the first listing of the proceedings.
The article was published both in print and on line. The two versions are identical apart from a difference in the headlines, which may have some significance. The printed article was published under the anodyne headline, “Chanticleer: Hunter Hall saga ends”, whereas, the Internet article, also published in the Chanticleer column, was headed, “Hunter Hall fight shows how not to run an LIC”.
The plaintiff is described in the article as the funder of Hunter Hall Funds Management Group. The article reports upon events that followed his “impetuous” decision to divest himself of a substantial shareholding, so it was reported, almost a quarter of a century after he founded the group.
The plaintiff has pleaded five imputations allegedly arising from the matter complained of. The defendants object to all of the imputations either on the grounds of capacity or form. In accordance with the usual procedure in this list, I have proceeded on the assumption that the capacity objection was brought forward for determination as a separate question in the proceedings.
The first imputation is, “Despite his reputation as an excellent fund manager, the plaintiff conducted the business of Hunter Hall International incompetently”. The defendant submits the imputation is incapable of arising from the matter complained of and further objects that the imputation is bad in form in that the word “incompetently” is insufficiently precise. It is appropriate always to determine an objection as to form on the grounds of imprecision before determining an objection on the grounds of capacity.
Ms Amato, who appears for the defendant, submitted the word “incompetently” is simply insufficiently precise to identify the act or condition allegedly attributed to the plaintiff by the article. Mr Polden, who appears for the plaintiff, reminded me of the well-known passage from the judgment of Gleeson CJ in Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21…

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 Hall v Fairfax Media Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hall v Fairfax Media Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1271
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1271
Decision Date: 17 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hall v Fairfax Media Ltd, the plaintiff, Ms Hall, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, Fairfax Media Ltd, publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald. Ms Hall alleged that the publication of two articles by the newspaper defamed her by implying she was unfit to hold a position of responsibility and was therefore a danger to the public. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's objections to the imputations in the articles were properly framed and sufficient to identify the alleged defamatory meanings. The plaintiff argued that the articles suggested she was unfit for public office and thus dangerous to the community. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's objections were vague and did not sufficiently identify the defamatory meanings, and that the form of the objections was improper.

Justice Edelman held that the plaintiff's objections to the imputations were acceptable and sufficiently identified the defamatory meanings. The court found that the objections were not overly general or vague and that they identified the specific imputations which the plaintiff claimed were defamatory. The court also found that the objections were self-referential, meaning they referred to the words themselves and their likely or possible impact on the reader, which was an acceptable form of objection. Therefore, the court dismissed the defendant's objections to the form of the pleadings and allowed the defamation claim to proceed.

Orders