Reported Decision:
(2003) 56 NSWLR 276
Court of Appeal
CITATION: ARTHUR HARRIS v 718932 [2003] NSWCA 38 HEARING DATE(S): 9 December 2002 JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 2003JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Stein JA at 32; Santow JA at 33 DECISION: Appeal allowed. Orders made CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - action for distinct republication of libel not for same damage as action for earlier publication and not barred by Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5(1)(b) - DEFAMATION - action for republication of libel not barred by judgment for earlier publication - RES JUDICATA - judgment for publication of libel does not bar action for distinct republication of same libel - SUCCESSIVE TORTFEASORS - tortfeasors whose separate acts cause separate damage - not joint or concurrent tortfeasors LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946
Limitation Act 1969
Interpretation Act 1987
Defamation ActCASES CITED: Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJ QB 231 CA
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 CA
Weld Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956
Macdougall v Knight (1890) 25 QBD 1 CA
Thomson v Lambert [1938] 2 DLR 545 (SCC)
Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 173
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162 CA, [1964] AC 371
Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185, [117 ER 75]
Prowse v McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 284
David Syme & Co Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 513
John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 CA
Thompson v Smiths Ship Repairers Ltd [1984] QB 405
Duke of Brunswick v Pepper (1848) 2 Car & K 683, [175 ER 286]
Freshwater v Bulmer Rayon Co [1933] Ch 162 CA 186, [1933] AC 661
Tang Man Sit v Capracious Investments Ltd [1996] AC 514
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 635
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589PARTIES :
ARTHUR HARRIS
v
718932 PTY LIMITED
(formerly Globe Press Pty Limited) & OrsFILE NUMBER(S): CA 41011/01 COUNSEL: Appellant - T K Tobin QC/D Campbell SC/
J W Wormington
Respondents - B R McClintock SC/
M L Sneddon
Respondents 4/5 - C A EvattSOLICITORS: Appellant - Verekers
Respondents 1&2 - Bush Burke & Company
Respondents 3&4 - Ramrakha Jenkins
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): CLD 21479/96 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Newman AJ
41011/01
CLD 21479/96
HANDLEY JA
STEIN JA
SANTOW JA
3 March 2003
ARTHUR HARRIS v 718932 PTY LIMITED
(formerly Globe Press Pty Limited) & ORS
DEFAMATION – action for distinct republication of libel not for same damage as action for earlier publication and not barred by Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5(1)(b)
DEFAMATION – action for republication of libel not barred by judgment for earlier publication
RES JUDICATA – judgment for publication of libel does not bar action for distinct republication of same libel
SUCCESSIVE TORTFEASORS – tortfeasors whose separate acts cause separate damage – not joint or…
Continue reading Harris v 718932 Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Harris v 718932 Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 38
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the plaintiff, Harris, against the defendant, 718932 Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether a prior judgment obtained by the plaintiff against a different party for the publication of the same defamatory material barred a subsequent action against the defendant for a distinct republication of that material. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of *res judicata* due to the prior judgment, and whether the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5(1)(b) precluded a separate action for the distinct republication. The court was required to consider the nature of distinct republications of defamatory material and their relationship to successive tortfeasors.
The Court of Appeal held that a judgment obtained against one publisher of a defamatory statement does not, by reason of *res judicata*, bar a subsequent action against a different publisher for a distinct republication of the same defamatory statement. The court reasoned that each distinct publication constitutes a separate tort, causing separate damage, and therefore the prior judgment did not extinguish the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant for the latter's independent act of publication. The court further found that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5(1)(b) did not apply to bar the action, as the defendant was not a joint or concurrent tortfeasor with the party against whom the prior judgment was obtained.
The appeal was allowed, and orders were made accordingly.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of *res judicata* due to the prior judgment, and whether the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5(1)(b) precluded a separate action for the distinct republication. The court was required to consider the nature of distinct republications of defamatory material and their relationship to successive tortfeasors.
The Court of Appeal held that a judgment obtained against one publisher of a defamatory statement does not, by reason of *res judicata*, bar a subsequent action against a different publisher for a distinct republication of the same defamatory statement. The court reasoned that each distinct publication constitutes a separate tort, causing separate damage, and therefore the prior judgment did not extinguish the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant for the latter's independent act of publication. The court further found that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5(1)(b) did not apply to bar the action, as the defendant was not a joint or concurrent tortfeasor with the party against whom the prior judgment was obtained.
The appeal was allowed, and orders were made accordingly.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed. Orders made
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.