Legal Research
Cases
John Fairfax v Punch

John Fairfax v Punch

Case [1980] FCA 123 29 August 1980

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Re: JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LIMITED and AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS PTY. LIMITED
And: LEON ASHTON PUNCH (1980) 47 FLR 458
No. F.C.39 of 1979
Defamation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Blackburn(1), Northrop(2) and Brennan(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Defamation - words indicating loss of confidence of members of political party in leader of party - whether defamatory of leader.

Defamation - Words indicating loss of confidence of members of political party in leader - Whether words capable of defaming leader - Imputations conveyed by words - Circumstances when words published - Whether words defamatory.

HEADNOTE

The respondent, the then Deputy Premier of New South Wales and the Parliamentary leader of the Country Party in that State recovered damages for defamation in an action against the appellants in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent relied upon the publication of four articles, the terms of which appear from the judgment of Blackburn and Northrop JJ., which stated in summary that a substantial number of members of the State Country Party themselves resolved to resign from that party but to maintain their support for the party in the federal sphere and to call for the resignation from his position of the leader of their party, he also being Deputy Premier of the State. The defence of qualified privilege was unavailable to the appellants.

On appeal,

Held: (1) The words complained of were capable in law of being defamatory as, per Blackburn and Northrop JJ., to say of a politician who is a leader of his political party that he has lost the confidence of a significant number of members of his party, which was the imputation the words bore, attributed incompetence to that leader.

Per Brennan J. - The words complained of disparaged the respondent's reputation as a leader and tended to affect his ability to retain that office. Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd. (1934), 50 TLR 581; Pratten v. Labour Daily Mail Ltd., (1926) VLR 115; Potts v. Moran (1976), 16 SASR 284, applied.

(2) The trial judge had correctly concluded that the words bore imputations that the respondent lacked the confidence of a substantial number of members of the party and thus were attacks on the respondent's competence as a politician.

(3) The words were defamatory.

HEARING

Canberra, 1980, April 9, 10; August 29. #DATE 29:8:1980

APPEAL.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of McGregor J. of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

A. B. Shand Q.C. and I. A. Curlewis, for the appellants.

T. E. F. Hughes Q.C. and J. P. Hamilton, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the appellants: Davies, Bailey & Cater.

Solicitors for the respondent: Macphillamy, Cummins and Gibson.

T. J. GINNANE

ORDER

1. the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGE1

The main question for determination in this appeal is whether certain published material was capable in law of being defamatory of the respondent. The trial judge's finding that 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.

Continue reading John Fairfax v Punch

Details

AGLC: John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor v. Punch, L.F. [1980] FCA 123 ((1980) 47 FLR 458)
Case: [1980] FCA 123
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of John Fairfax v Punch involved the publisher of a newspaper, John Fairfax, and the defendant, Punch, who published an article in a periodical. The dispute centred around an article that was published in Punch which contained words that were alleged to be defamatory of a particular political party leader. The plaintiff, John Fairfax, sought to establish that the words published were defamatory and as a result, he sought damages for the harm caused by the publication. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the words published by Punch, which indicated that the members of a political party had lost confidence in their leader, were defamatory of the leader of that party. The Court had to consider whether the words published in the article were likely to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society and whether they were defamatory of the plaintiff as an individual. The Court also had to consider the context in which the words were published and the circumstances surrounding the publication.

In determining the issue, the Court considered the meaning of the words published and whether they were defamatory of the plaintiff. The Court held that the words published in the article did not indicate that the members of the political party had lost confidence in the plaintiff as a leader but rather, that they had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party. The Court found that the words did not lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society and were not defamatory of the plaintiff. The Court also held that the context in which the words were published did not make them defamatory. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

The Court's decision was that the words published by Punch were not defamatory of the plaintiff and as a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to damages. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the appeal be dismissed with costs.

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.

Actions

Citations

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor v. Punch, L.F. [1980] FCA 123 ((1980) 47 FLR 458)

Most Recent Citation

Lyons v Fowler [2014] VSC 627

Cases Citing This Decision

Park v Choi [2019] NSWDC 660
Citation 1

…fice is sufficient. It is not necessary that there should be an imputation of immoral or disgraceful conduct (per Brennan J in John Fairfax v Punch (1980) 31 ALR 624 at 632 - 633 citing Lord Herschell in Alexander v Jenkins [1892] 1 QB 797 at 800). Thus, the substantive legal issue here may be expressed as whether t…
Lyons v Fowler [2014] VSC 627
Citation 2

…[14]Ibid 476 [33]. See also John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor v Punch (1980) 31 ALR 624, 629 (Blackburn and Northrop JJ).…
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCATrans 9
Citation 3

…amatory and it is not necessary to always link the imputation to personal reputation to be defamatory. Can I take the Court to John Fairfax v Punch 31 ALR 624 at page 632. This is Mr Justice Brennan when he was in the Federal Court, your Honours, and I have pointed out in my submissions that this judgment of…
Emerson v Walker [2001] WASC 7
Citation 4 (Para 8)

…Counsel for the plaintiff referred to John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Punch [1980] 47 FLR 458. In that case Brennan J, at 467, indicated a view that in relation to an imputation of a disability affecting the performance of the functions of an office the "classic definition" of defamation as something exposing the o…
Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott [1999] FCA 1538
Citation 5

…John Fairfax v Punch (1980) 31 ALR 624 referred to…
Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1994] HCA 45
Citation 6

…ccurately report the remarks of Mr Lockyer, MLC ((37) Morosi v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd. (1977) 2 NSWLR 749 at 780; John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. v. Punch (1980) 31 ALR 624 at 634; Blackshaw v. Lord (1984) QB at 20.). The omission of these particulars leaves the plea in par.20B without support, for there could be no soci…
Stephens & Ors v West Australian Newspapers Limited; Theophanous v The Herald & Weekly Times Limited [1993] HCATrans 273
Citation 7

…the Federal Court, in relation to common law qualified privilege, followed the observations in Calwell in a case of John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Punch, (1980) 31 ALR 624, and I will take Your Honours to page 634 if I may. Your Honours will see in that case, at…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Calwell v Ipec Australia Ltd [1975] HCA 47
Citation 1

…Of course, it is one thing to hold that such an imputation is defamatory; it is another thing to find that the publication of such an imputation is actionable. The legitimate public interest in a matter of that kind, and the public good which is served by the publication of information relating to s…
Ryan v Ross [1916] HCA 43
Citation 2

…The meaning to be attributed to each of the articles depends upon its terms, understood in the light of the circumstances generally known when the publications were made (Ryan v. Ross (1916) 22 C.L.R.1 at p.29; Jones v. Skelton (1963) S.R.(N.S.W.) 644 at p.650). The article published to AAP on 29 Ap…
Parmiter v Coupland 151 ER 340
Citation 3

…The submission is not well founded. A person may be defamed by an imputation of a disability affecting the performance of the functions of his office, although the imputation does not expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. No doubt that proposition appears at odds with what Parke B. said in Par…
Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1968) 2 QB 157
Citation 4

…His Honour's finding fixed the meaning of the articles in respect of which the award of damages was made (see Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1968) 2 Q.B.157 at pp.176, 177,185). In this Court, the appellant submitted that his Honour was in error in finding that the articles (or any of them) conveyed …
Jones v Skelton (1963) 1 WLR 1362
Citation 5

…The meaning to be attributed to each of the articles depends upon its terms, understood in the light of the circumstances generally known when the publications were made (Ryan v. Ross (1916) 22 C.L.R.1 at p.29; Jones v. Skelton (1963) S.R.(N.S.W.) 644 at p.650). The article published to AAP on 29 Ap…
Alexander v Jenkins (1892) 1 QB 797
Citation 6

…The submission is not well founded. A person may be defamed by an imputation of a disability affecting the performance of the functions of his office, although the imputation does not expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. No doubt that proposition appears at odds with what Parke B. said in Par…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.