Legal Research
Cases
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco

Link copied

Case Copied 26 October 1988 19 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Wilson, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

JOHN FAIRFAX &SONS LTD. v. COJUANGCO

(1988) 165 CLR 346

26 October 1988

Defamation

Defamation—Discovery preliminary—Newspaper—Alleged defamatory publication—Identity of journalist's informants not disclosed—Application for disclosure for purpose of commencing proceedings—Newspaper rule—Application for preliminary discovery—Rules of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Pt 3, r 1(1).

Decision

MASON C.J., WILSON, DEANE, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ.: Part 3 r.1(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of New South Wales provides:
"Where, on application by any person, it
appears to the Court that-
(a) the applicant, having made reasonable

inquiries, is unable to ascertain the identity of a person for the purpose of commencing proceedings against that person or is unable to ascertain the description of any person sufficiently for that purpose; and

(b) some person has or may have knowledge of facts, or has or may have in his possession, custody or power any document or thing, tending to assist in the ascertainment of the identity or description of the person concerned,

the Court may order that person (c) to attend before the Court or an officer of the Court and be orally examined on any matter relating to the identity or description of the person concerned; and

(d) to produce any document or thing in his possession, custody or power relating to the identity or description of the person concerned."

2. The respondent applied for preliminary discovery under this rule of the identity of sources of information upon which a news story and article published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 February 1985 had been based. The Sydney Morning Herald is a newspaper published by the first appellant, John Fairfax &Sons Limited ("Fairfax"). The second appellant, Peter Hastings, is the author of the article.

3. The article appeared under the heading "Corruption as an art form". It began in this way:
"In Indonesia and Thailand, graft and
corruption, often on a large scale, are part of the
scenery - a form of political and economic overhead. In the Philippines they have been elevated to an art form. One of the leading local US banks maintains that of the Philippines' $US26 billion foreign debt, the President and close 'cronies' like coconut king Eduardo Cojuangco, and sugar baron Roberto Benedicto, not to mention the First Lady, have totally squandered $US9 billion of it."

4. The respondent is a prominent businessman in the Philippines who has extensive bloodstock and grazing interests in New South Wales. In the past, he has been appointed by the Philippines Government as an "Ambassador at large". He seeks to identify the second appellant's sources of information so that he may bring proceedings in New South Wales for defamation against the persons who have provided information to the second appellant for the parts of the article of which he complains. It is common ground that such persons would be liable in defamation in New South Wales for information given to the second appellant in the…

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 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco 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: [1988] HCA 54
Decision Date: 26 October 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd and Anor v Cojuangco [1988] HCA 24 concerned a defamation action brought by Mr Cojuangco against the publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald. The dispute arose from a newspaper article published by John Fairfax & Sons Ltd which Mr Cojuangco alleged was defamatory of him. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the newspaper article was defamatory and, if so, whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the publishers.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: (1) whether the imputation that Mr Cojuangco had acted dishonestly in relation to a business transaction was established by the newspaper article; and (2) whether the defence of qualified privilege, which requires a legal, social or moral duty to publish and an interest in receiving the information, could be successfully invoked by the publishers. The court also considered the extent to which a defendant in a defamation action can rely on a defence of qualified privilege when the publication is made to a wide and indiscriminate audience.

The High Court, by majority, found that the article was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and that the imputation of dishonesty was open to be found by a jury. Regarding qualified privilege, the majority held that while there might be a moral or social duty to inform the public about matters of public interest, the publication of the article to the general readership of the newspaper was too wide to attract the protection of qualified privilege in this instance. The court emphasised that the privilege is defeated if the publication exceeds the limits of the duty or interest.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the jury's verdict and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages. The court confirmed that the question of whether the article was defamatory and the availability of qualified privilege were matters for the jury to determine, subject to the legal principles as clarified by the High Court.

Orders