Hall v Gould - [2002] NSWSC 359

CITATION: Hall & Ors v Gould [2002] NSWSC 359

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20827 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 May 2002

PARTIES :

JAMES ANTHONY HALL
(First Plaintiff)
DAVID ROYCE AYLIFFE
(Second PLaintiff)
IAN ROBERTS
(Third Plaintiff)
DARYL WILLIAMS
(Fourth PLaintiff)
v
PHILLIP GOULD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
S Littlemore QC
(Plaintiff)
T Blackburn
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Walter Madden Jenkins
(Plaintiff)
Thurlow Fisher
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - form - capacity - "corrupt"

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act, 1974

CASES CITED: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors [2002] NSWCA 41
Jackson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 39
Singleton v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (unreported 20 February 1980)

DECISION: See paragraph 31

DJL:1

[2002] NSWSC 359

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

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 1 MAY 2002

20827 OF 2001

JAMES ANTHONY HALL
(First Plaintiff)

DAVID ROYCE AYLIFFE
(Second Plaintiff)

IAN ROBERTS
(Third Plaintiff)

DARYL WILLIAMS
(Fourth Plaintiff)

v

PHILLIP GOULD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - form – capacity –

“corrupt”

)

1 There are four plaintiffs Messrs Hall, Ayliffe, Roberts and Williams. Upon reading the Amended Statement of Claim however it appears to me that the first plaintiff, Mr Hall, is pleading but one cause of action namely imputation 5(d) (see below) arising from the second publication of which complaint is made. In paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim the allegation is made that the respective publications sued upon were “of and concerning the plaintiffs”. In fact Mr Hall sues only in respect of the defendant’s column in “The Sun Herald”.

2 The first publication of which complaint is made was a radio broadcast on 2GB on 16 August 2001. The defendant who for present purposes can be taken to be a person well known in Rugby League football was commenting upon (I use the word “comment” in the non-legal sense) the procedure, proceedings and findings of what I understand to be a panel of the New South Wales Rugby League Judiciary in relation to a player, Craig Smith. As was acknowledged by both sides in the course of submissions, Mr Gould’s remarks could well be understood to be strong criticism.

3 The following imputations are pleaded with respect to this first publication:

“3(a) That

the second, third and fourth plaintiffs

, who made up the New South Wales Rugby League Judiciary Panel, acted perversely in finding Craig Smith guilty of striking another player;

(b) That

the second, third and fourth plaintiffs

, who made up the New South Wales Rugby League Judiciary Panel, acted corruptly when they found Craig Smith guilty of striking another player in that despite knowing that there was no proof that he acted intentionally, they accepted the mere opinion of the Judiciary Commissioner that he did act intentionally;

(c) That

the second, third and fourth plaintiffs

,…

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 Gould

Details

AGLC: Hall v Gould [2002] NSWSC 359
Case: [2002] NSWSC 359
Decision Date: 1 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Gould involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hall, and the defendant, Gould, regarding imputations made by Gould about Hall's conduct and capacity. Gould had accused Hall of being corrupt in relation to his business activities, leading to Hall seeking damages for defamation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether Gould's imputations about Hall's corruption were defamatory and whether they had indeed been made with the necessary malice. This involved examining the nature of the imputations, the manner in which they were conveyed, and the context in which they were made. The court had to consider whether the imputations were such that they substantially lowered Hall's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.

The court found that the imputations made by Gould were indeed defamatory and were made with the requisite malice. The term "corrupt" was held to be a serious allegation that could harm a person's reputation, particularly in a business context. The court emphasised that the imputations had been made publicly and in a manner that was likely to be widely read and believed. The evidence presented supported the conclusion that Gould had acted with malice in making these statements. The court awarded Hall damages for the defamation suffered.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Gould's statements were defamatory and an award of damages to Hall. Gould was also ordered to pay costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders