CITATION: JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS v RENE RIVKIN [1999] NSWCA 164 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40796/98 HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
19 May 1999PARTIES :
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS
v
RENE RIVKINJUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Sheller JA at 17; Brownie AJA at 18
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 20084/98 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Levine J
COUNSEL: M J Neil QC (claimant)
T E G Hughes QC (opponent)SOLICITORS: Freehill Hollingdale & Page (claimant)
Gilbert & Tobin (opponent)CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - whether imputation ambiguous - true innuendo - whether need to prove objective truth of extrinsic facts - Defamation Act 1974 - s7A - appeals from interlocutory decisions ACTS CITED: Defamation Act 1974 CASES CITED: State Government Insurance Office v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549 at 561
Mirror Newspapers Limited v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 at 641
The Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 at 323DECISION: Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEALCA 40796/98
CLD 20084/98
SHELLER JA
HANDLEY JA
BROWNIE AJA
Wednesday 19 May 1999
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS v RENE RIVKIN
The claimant sought leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions in the defamation list. One issue was whether the imputation that the plaintiff was criminally liable in respect of murder was ambiguous because it could include remoter forms of criminal liability. A second issue was whether the plaintiff, in seeking to establish a true innuendo, was required not only to plead the extrinsic facts but also to prove their objective truth. There were other challenges to the plaintiff’s pleadings. The application of s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 on appellate interference with interlocutory decisions was also considered.
DEFAMATION - whether imputation ambiguous - true innuendo - whether need to prove objective truth of extrinsic facts - Defamation Act 1974 - s 7A - appeals from interlocutory decisions
HELD : dismissing the summons for leave to appeal: (1) The imputation was not ambiguous and remoter forms of criminal liability were not covered. State Government Insurance Office v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549 at 561 applied. (2) There is no general principle applicable to true innuendos that the extrinsic facts which the special group of readers bring to their understanding of the publication must exist otherwise than in their belief or opinion. Mirror Newspapers Limited v World Hosts Pty Limited (1979) 141 CLR 632 at 641 applied. (3) The Court should apply to defamation proceedings governed by s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 the strict principles against appellate interference with interlocutory orders. The Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 at 323.
ORDERSSummons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEALCA 40796/98
CLD 20084/98
SHELLER JA
HANDLEY JA
BROWNIE AJA
Wednesday 19 May 1999
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS v RENE RIVKIN
JUDGMENT
1 HANDLEY JA: This is a…
Continue reading John Fairfax Publications v Rivkin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- John Fairfax Publications v Rivkin [1999] NSWCA 164
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (the publisher) appealed from an interlocutory decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a defamation action brought by Mr. Rivkin. The dispute centred on whether certain imputations conveyed by articles published by the publisher were defamatory of Mr. Rivkin.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the imputations pleaded by Mr. Rivkin were capable of being understood by ordinary reasonable readers in the defamatory sense alleged. This involved a determination of whether the imputations were ambiguous and, if so, whether the defence of truth required proof of the objective truth of the extrinsic facts relied upon to establish a "true innuendo" meaning.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Handley and Sheller JJA and Brownie AJA, considered the principles governing the construction of defamatory imputations. It was held that where an imputation is ambiguous, the question for the jury is whether the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the imputation in a defamatory sense. The court affirmed that for a "true innuendo" to be established, the plaintiff must prove the truth of the extrinsic facts upon which the defamatory meaning is based. However, the court found that the imputations in question were not ambiguous in the manner contended by the publisher, and that the trial judge's interlocutory decision was not attended by error.
Consequently, the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the imputations pleaded by Mr. Rivkin were capable of being understood by ordinary reasonable readers in the defamatory sense alleged. This involved a determination of whether the imputations were ambiguous and, if so, whether the defence of truth required proof of the objective truth of the extrinsic facts relied upon to establish a "true innuendo" meaning.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Handley and Sheller JJA and Brownie AJA, considered the principles governing the construction of defamatory imputations. It was held that where an imputation is ambiguous, the question for the jury is whether the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the imputation in a defamatory sense. The court affirmed that for a "true innuendo" to be established, the plaintiff must prove the truth of the extrinsic facts upon which the defamatory meaning is based. However, the court found that the imputations in question were not ambiguous in the manner contended by the publisher, and that the trial judge's interlocutory decision was not attended by error.
Consequently, the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
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.