John Fairfax Publications v Rivkin

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.