Lane v Reid - [2005] NSWCA 198

CITATION:
Lane & Anor v Reid [2005] NSWCA 198

HEARING DATE(S):
18/05/05

JUDGMENT DATE:

18 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Brownie AJA at 1; Hodgson JA at 17; Bryson JA at 21

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted, notice of appeal to be filed within seven days. 2. Appeal dismissed. 3. Claimants to pay opponent's costs of the application and the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:
Defamation - Counsel's address to jury - Whether jury should have been discharged - Whether direction to jury was adequate.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Defamation Act 1974 s 7A

CASES CITED:
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) HCA 50, 201 ALR 77
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 208
Crolll v McRae (1930) 30 SR 137
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44

PARTIES:
Shaun Patrick Lane - First Appellant
The Rehabilitation Company Pty Ltd - Second Appellant
John Charles Reid - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 041037/04

COUNSEL:
J S Wheelhouse SC - Appellants
S M Littlemore QC - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Appellants
Walsh & Blair - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
1490/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Sorby DCJ

- 1 -

041037/04

HODGSON JA
BRYSON JA
BROWNIE AJA
18 May 2005

SHAUN PATRICK LANE & ANOR v JOHN CHARLES REID

Judgment

1 BROWNIE AJA: The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for defamation. There was a jury trial at which the jury considered the questions whether the matter published carried certain imputations, and if so whether those imputations were defamatory of the plaintiff: Defamation Act 1974 s 7A.

2 During the course of the hearing the learned trial judge, Judge Sorby, rejected an application made by the defendants to discharge the jury, and in due course the jury answered various questions that had been left to it. The defendants now seek leave to appeal, first from the refusal of his Honour to discharge the jury, and secondly in substance complaining that a direction his Honour gave to the jury was inadequate in the circumstances. If leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is to be heard at the same time.

3 The matter published consisted of an e-mail allegedly sent by the defendants to some dozens of people, said to be members of the Association of Rehabilitation Providers in the Public Sector. Four imputations were left for consideration by the jury, namely (a) that the plaintiff had been passing himself off as a rehabilitation provider when he had no right to do so, (b) that he is unscrupulous in his conduct, (c) that although he is no more than a personal trainer he will diagnose psychological conditions which he is not qualified to do, and (e) that although accredited by WorkCover a government body for case management in rehabilitation, his qualifications were inadequate. The jury found that the matter published conveyed all four of these imputations, but that only imputations (a) and (b) were defamatory of the plaintiff.

4…

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 Lane v Reid

Details

AGLC: Lane v Reid [2005] NSWCA 198
Case: [2005] NSWCA 198
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the claimants against the defendant. The central dispute revolved around whether the jury in the original trial should have been discharged, and whether the directions provided to the jury by the trial judge were sufficient. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the conduct of counsel during their address to the jury was so prejudicial as to warrant the discharge of the jury. Secondly, the Court had to assess the adequacy of the directions given by the trial judge to the jury in light of that conduct and the overall proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conduct of counsel, while potentially improper, did not reach the threshold requiring the discharge of the jury. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the directions provided by the trial judge were adequate to guide the jury in their deliberations and to mitigate any potential prejudice arising from counsel's address. Consequently, the claimants were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of both the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted, notice of appeal to be filed within seven days. 2. Appeal dismissed. 3. Claimants to pay opponent's costs of the application and the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	Lane & Anor v Reid [2005] NSWCA 198
HEARING DATE(S):	18/05/05
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 May 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Brownie AJA at 1; Hodgson JA at 17; Bryson JA at 21
DECISION:	1. Leave to appeal granted, notice of appeal to be filed within seven days. 2. Appeal dismissed. 3. Claimants to pay opponent's costs of the application and the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:	Defamation - Counsel's address to jury - Whether jury should have been discharged - Whether direction to jury was adequate.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Defamation Act 1974 s 7A
CASES CITED:	John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) HCA 50, 201 ALR 77 Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 208 Crolll v McRae (1930) 30 SR 137 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
PARTIES:	Shaun Patrick Lane - First Appellant The Rehabilitation Company Pty Ltd - Second Appellant John Charles Reid - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 041037/04
COUNSEL:	J S Wheelhouse SC - Appellants S M Littlemore QC - Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Appellants Walsh & Blair - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	1490/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Sorby DCJ