Howlett v Saggers - [1999] NSWSC 445

CITATION: HOWLETT v. SAGGERS [1999] NSWSC 445

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20783 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 28 October 1998; 17 February 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 May 1999

PARTIES :

Vernon Charles HOWLETT & ANOR
v.
Colin Arthur SAGGERS & ANOR

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: A. Shand, QC.
Defendant. A.R. Young

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Bush Burke & Co.

CATCHWORDS: Costs - defamation - verdict less than provided under Rule - appropriateness of matter in the Supreme Court - discretion to award costs - costs of whole proceedings or issue by issue - whole costs or part - conduct of parties - complex issues of principle

ACTS CITED: Defamation Act 1974
Supreme Court Act 1970
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: John Fairfax & Sons Limited v. Palmer (1987) 8 NSWLR 297
Toomey v. John Fairfax & Sons Limited (Hunt
CJ. at CL.
unreported 22 May 1995)

DECISION: Successful defendants to have limited costs against second plaintiff. Successful first plaintiff to have costs against defendants. All parties to pay own costs of disqualification and costs proceedings.

HOWLETT2 -13-
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 20783 of 1994

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 14 MAY 1999

VERNON CHARLES HOWLETT & ANOR v.
COLIN ARTHUR SAGGERS & ANOR
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1 This judgment relates to the question of costs which remained reserved following the judgments of His Honour Acting Justice Donovan of 24 April and 29 April 1998 in defamation proceedings brought by Vernon Charles Howlett and Daphne Pearson against Colin Arthur Saggers and Keith Raymond Jones.
2 The substantive proceedings had been heard by his Honour with, as to the two questions of whether the imputations pleaded arose and whether they were defamatory, a jury. Publication had been admitted.
3 His Honour recorded the result of the jury's deliberations in his judgment of 24 April 1998 at p.4 as follows:-
"The jury found that the first imputation arose and that it was defamatory. They found the second imputation arose but was not defamatory. They found the third imputation, that is the one concerning Mrs. Pearson, did not arise. This meant that after the jury returned their answers, the trial proceeded pursuant to s.7A before me only in relation to the first imputation and the first plaintiff. I record now that there will be a verdict for the defendants in relation to the claim by the second plaintiff."
4 His Honour, in accordance with that then newly inserted provision of the Defamation Act 1974 (s.7A), heard the balance of the proceedings. In the result, after about two weeks of evidence and later, two days of submissions, his Honour found a verdict for the first plaintiff jointly against both defendants in the sum of $13,500 and a verdict for the defendants against the second plaintiff, reserving costs.
5 Prior to his Honour hearing and deciding the question of costs, application was made that he disqualify himself from hearing that question. After some quite…

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 Howlett v Saggers 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: [1999] NSWSC 445
Decision Date: 14 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Howlett v Saggers was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff, Howlett, sought damages for defamation against Saggers, the defendant. The dispute centred on statements made by Saggers about Howlett, which Howlett claimed were defamatory and caused damage to his reputation. The case was complex, involving numerous legal arguments and principles, and was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of whether the defamation claim was appropriately decided in the Supreme Court, given that the verdict was less than what could have been provided under the court rules. The court also had to decide on the appropriate method for awarding costs in such cases, whether the costs should apply to the entire proceedings or on an issue-by-issue basis. Additionally, the court considered the conduct of both parties throughout the litigation process and the complexity of the issues of principle involved.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of proportionality in awarding costs. It noted that the conduct of the parties, as well as the complexity of the issues, should be taken into account when deciding the appropriate amount of costs. The court concluded that it was appropriate to award costs for the whole of the proceedings rather than on an issue-by-issue basis, given the nature of the litigation and the conduct of the parties. The court also found that the costs should reflect the complexity of the issues and the efforts made by both parties.

The court ordered that costs be awarded to the plaintiff for the entire proceedings, taking into account the conduct of the parties and the complexity of the issues. The specific amount of costs was to be determined by the Registrar, ensuring that the award was proportionate to the efforts and costs incurred by the plaintiff.

Orders