Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 739

CITATION: Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 739

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20068/00

HEARING DATE(S): 24 - 26 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 September 2001

PARTIES :

Jeffrey Jarratt (Plt)
John Fairfax Publications (Def)

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan J

COUNSEL : T K Tobin QC/D Campbell/J Castaldi (Plt)
W H Nicholas QC/T D Blackburn (Def)

SOLICITORS: Verekers (Plt)
Freehills (Def)

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - damages - aggravated damages - publication of newspaper material on the internet

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 ss 46(1)(2)(3), 46A(1)(2), 48
Motor Accidents Act 1988
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978
Workers' Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor (1981) 2 NSWLR 474
Australian Consolidated Press v Ettinghausen, unreported, NSWSC, 13 October 1993
Broome v Cassell (1972) AC 1027
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1
Harrigan v Jones [2001] NSWSC 623
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 74 ALJR 1109
Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 732
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 510
Randwick Labor Club Limited v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 906
Tingle & Anor v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Anor (No 4) [1999] NSWSC
Trend Management Ltd v Borg (1996) 40 NSWLR 500
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1965-66) 117 CLR 118
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 72
Vacik Distributors Pty Ltd & Anor v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor (No 8) [2000] NSWSC 732

DECISION: See paras 168, 169

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

FRIDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2001

20068/00 - JARRATT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED

Introduction

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Jeffrey Jarratt, sues the defendant, John Fairfax & Sons Limited for damages for defamation. The defendant is the publisher of The Sydney Morning Herald, a newspaper circulating within New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory and to a minor extent in all other states of Australia.

2 The proceedings arise from three publications in the newspaper. The first of those publications occurred on Wednesday, 8 September 1999, when three articles were published. Two of those articles were published on page 5 of the newspaper, the other on page 16. The major article on page 5 had the headline "Radio Giant Courted Our Police" with the subheading "Top-level police manipulated negotiations for a new radio network and were wined and dined at the successful company's expense." The breakout story on the same page was headed "Top Cop Jarratt's Highest Hurdle."

3 The articles were accompanied by a large cartoon drawing of the plaintiff on a golf cart with the police logo on it pushing a ball with the name "Motorola" on it, into a hole.

4…

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 Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd 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: [2001] NSWSC 739
Decision Date: 7 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd arose in the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute over defamation claims against a newspaper publisher. The plaintiff, Jarratt, sought damages for statements published in an online newspaper article, which he alleged defamed him. The defendant, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, was the publisher of the newspaper, and the subject of the defamatory statements was a business deal involving the plaintiff.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the published statements were defamatory, and if so, whether the defendant was liable for the publication of these statements. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages and whether aggravated damages were warranted. The court was also required to consider the implications of the publication being made on the internet, including the broader reach and potential impact of online publication.

The court found that the statements published in the online article were indeed defamatory, as they implied that the plaintiff engaged in dishonest and unethical conduct in relation to the business deal. In establishing liability, the court noted that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the statements before publication. As for damages, the court awarded general damages for the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and ordered aggravated damages to reflect the manner in which the defamation was carried out. The court took into account the significant impact of the publication on the internet, noting that the broader reach and permanence of online content justified the award of aggravated damages. Ultimately, the court recognised the importance of holding publishers accountable for defamatory content, even in the digital age.

Orders