Hall v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hall v Qld Newspapers P/L [2000] QCA 308

PARTIES:

ROBERT DAVID HALL
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
ACN 009 661 778
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8551 of 1999
SC No 4985 of 1997

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus JA, White and Dutney JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.Appeal allowed with costs.        

2.Judgment entered below set aside.        

3.Order that the respondent pay the costs of the previous trials.        

4.Order that there be a new trial, limited to the amount of damages to be awarded to the appellant.        

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF – IDENTIFICATION – article in newspaper made criticisms of "Judge Clive Hall QC" – intended to refer to Judge Clive Wall QC – whether appellant, Judge Robert Hall, identified – whether sufficient for some readers to interpret as referring to appellant

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL GRANTED – GENERAL PRINCIPLE – when jury's verdict may be rejected - whether to reject jury's verdict
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309, followed

Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 All E R 287, followed

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd 1993) 178 CLR 44, followed

Evans v Davies [1991] 2 Qd R 498, considered
Hayward v Thompson [1982] QB 47, followed,
Hyams v Peterson [1991] 3 NZLR 648, followed
Lee v Wilson (1934) 51 CLR 276, followed
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd (1971) WLR 1239, mentioned

Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 1 KB 377, considered

Talmax Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [1997] 2 Qd R 444, mentioned

Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Limited (1934) 50 TLR 581, considered

COUNSEL:

P A Keane QC for the appellant

R A Mulholland QC with D L Spence for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Michael Sing & Associates for the appellant
Thynne & Macartney for the respondent

1. PINCUS JA:  This is an appeal against a defamation judgment, given after a jury trial.  The successful defendant, now respondent, resisted a claim by Judge Robert Hall, a District Court judge, that he was defamed by an article about him in the "Courier‑Mail", which has a large circulation.  The appellant's case was that the article contained accusations that he had made comments which were outdated, narrow minded and misguided, that he needed to mend his ways and that he disadvantaged and prejudged children and perpetuated discrimination against children;  then there was a statement that "Queensland had the 'most shocking' rate of children being mistreated as witnesses by courts and lawyers".  The whole article is at the end of these reasons.