Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2000] NSWSC 547

CITATION: Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 547 revised - 21/06/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20068/00

HEARING DATE(S): 9 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 June 2000

PARTIES :

Jeffrey Thomas JARRATT - Plaintiff
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr T K Tobin QC with Mr S Campbell - Plaintiff
Mr W H Nicholas QC with Mr T Blackburn - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Verekers - Plaintiff
Freehill Hollingdale & Page - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - imputations - difference in substance - SCR Pt 67 R 11(3) - form of imputations - degree of specificity required - capacity of matter complained of to convey imputations.

DECISION: Application to strike out imputations refused.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Defamation List
SIMPSON J
Monday 19 June 2000
20068/00

Jeffrey Thomas JARRATT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1    The plaintiff claims damages for defamatory imputations he alleges were conveyed by the defendant in three separate publications, dated, respectively, 8 September 1999, 5 October 1999 and 7 February 2000. Each publication was contained in the edition for the relevant day of the Sydney Morning Herald of which (it may be accepted for present purposes) the defendant was the publisher. The plaintiff pleads that he is and was at all material times a Deputy Commissioner of the NSW Police Service and Commander, inter alia, of the Communications Group of that Service. This is a separate trial of preliminary issues raised by the defendant relating to the imputations pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant seeks orders striking out the imputations pleaded.

The first matter complained of

2    The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 September 1999 carried three separate items that concerned the plaintiff. The general subject matter was a discussion of a contract for the purchase from a company identified as Motorola Australia of a multi million dollar communication system for use in the Police Service, and allegedly questionable activities and dealings that preceded the execution of the contract. In essence, the items, individually and taken together, suggest, at the very least, that the negotiations relating to the contract were marked by impropriety on the part of some police officers who had responsibility for the acquisition of the communications system.
3    Two of the articles were contained on page 5 of the SMH of that date. The first appeared under a headline “Communication Breakdown”, which was followed by another, large, headline “Radio Giant courted our police”. Immediately underneath this headline was a summary, or synopsis, line which read:

“Top level police manipulated negotiations for a new radio network and were wined and dined at the successful company’s expense. Ben Hills reports.”

4    The second article, which accompanied the first, appeared over the byline of the same journalist and under the headline:

“Top cop Jarratt’s highest hurdle”

5    The third article of that day appeared in the Features section, on page 16,…

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: [2000] NSWSC 547
Decision Date: 19 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, the court was called upon to decide on the merits of a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a media publishing company. The plaintiff, Jarratt, alleged that the defendant's publication of certain articles had defamed him by conveying specific imputations that were damaging to his reputation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought both damages and an injunction to prevent further publication of the defamatory material.

The central legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the articles in question conveyed defamatory imputations of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant a finding of defamation. The plaintiff argued that the articles, while not explicitly stating defamatory content, implied certain negative characteristics about him through their form and content. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that any imputations made were either too vague or did not reach the threshold of seriousness required by law. The court was required to determine the degree of specificity and clarity necessary for an imputation to be considered defamatory, and whether the articles in question met this standard.

The court examined the articles closely, considering the context in which the words were used and the audience likely to read them. It found that the articles did indeed convey imputations that were defamatory in nature. The form and content of the articles, including the use of certain language and the context in which it was presented, led the court to conclude that the articles carried imputations that were damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. The court held that the articles implied certain negative characteristics about the plaintiff that were not justified and which had the capacity to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court thus found in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of defamation.

The final orders of the court included an award of damages to the plaintiff and an injunction preventing the defendant from publishing the impugned articles again. The court found that the defendant's actions had indeed caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation and that the injunction was necessary to prevent further damage. The court also considered the impact of the publication on the plaintiff's professional and personal life, and the need for a remedy that would restore his reputation and provide compensation for the harm suffered. The court's decision thus provided a clear and decisive resolution to the dispute, affirming the plaintiff's rights and providing a measure of redress for the harm caused by the defendant's actions.

Orders