John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane

Case [2005] NSWCA 164


Reported Decision:

(2005) Aust Torts Reports 81-789

Court of Appeal


CITATION:

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane [2005] NSWCA 164

HEARING DATE(S):

8 and 9 September 2004

 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


17 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Giles JA at 1; Ipp JA at 104; Young CJ in Eq at 141

DECISION:

Appeal is allowed in part, damages to be reassessed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORT- Defamation- Whether matter fact or comment- Whether material supporting comment. TORT- Defamation- Qualified privilege- Whether "Lange defence" available when judicial officer allegedly defamed.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Defamation Act 1974, ss 9, 11, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 46A

CASES CITED:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (No 2) (1992) 177 CLR 106
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 78 ALJR 346
Carleton v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2002) Aust Tort Rep 81-685; 172 FLR 398
Christie v Robertson (1889) 10 LR(NSW)(L) 157
Clarke v Norton [1910] VLR 494
Comalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1985) 64 ACTR 1
Conservation Council of SA Inc v Chapman (2003) 87 SASR 62
Cunliffe v Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272
Dawes v News Ltd [1935] SASR 312
Digby v Financial News Ltd [1907] 1 KB 502
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 79 ALJR 755
Evening News, Re The (1880) 1 LR (NSW)(L) 211
Goldsbrough v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 524
Harrigan v Jones (2001) Aust Tort Rep 81-621
Herald & Weekly Times v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
Hoser v The Queen [2003] VSCA 194
Hunt v Star Newspaper Co Ltd [1908] 2 KB 309
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (2000) 181 ALR 694
Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345
Kimber v The Press Association Ltd [1893] 1 QB 65
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Mann v O'Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204
McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140
McRae v South Australian Telecasters Ltd (1976) 14 SASR 162
Mitchell v Sprout [2002] 1 NZLR 766
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374
Mowlds v Fergusson (1939) 40 SR (NSW) 311
Nagle v Chulov [2001] NSWSC 9
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Perkins (1998) 45 NSWLR 340
O'Shaughnessy v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 347
Peek v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2004] SASC 425
Pervan v The North Queensland Newspaper Company Limited (1993) 178 CLR 309
Peterson v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1995) 64 SASR 150
Petritsis v v Hellenic Herald Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 174
R v Dunbabin; Ex parte Williams (1935) 53 CLR 434
R V Fletcher; Ex parte Kisch (1935) 52 CLR 248
R v Nicholls (1911) 12 CLR 280
Re A Special Reference from the Bahama Islands [1893] AC 138
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty…

Continue reading John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane [2005] NSWCA 164
Case
[2005] NSWCA 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (the publisher) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found it liable for defamation against Mr O'Shane, a judicial officer. The defamation claim arose from an article published by the publisher concerning Mr O'Shane's conduct.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the published material constituted fact or comment, and whether the defence of qualified privilege, specifically the "Lange defence," was available to the publisher when the subject of the alleged defamation was a judicial officer.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature of the published statements, distinguishing between assertions of fact and expressions of opinion or comment. It also examined the scope of qualified privilege in the context of public interest journalism, particularly concerning the conduct of public officials. The court applied established principles of defamation law to determine whether the publisher had established its defences.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the Court of Appeal ordering that the damages awarded to Mr O'Shane be reassessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal is allowed in part, damages to be reassessed.

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.