Lang v Willis

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, John Thomas Lang, was the leader of the New South Wales Labor Party, and the respondent, Albert Charles Willis, was a candidate in a parliamentary by-election. The dispute arose from statements made by Lang at public meetings during the election campaign, in which he strongly criticised Willis, who was also contesting the election as a Labor candidate, creating a contest between two claimants for the party's endorsement. Willis brought an action for slander against Lang, alleging that the statements were defamatory.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge had erred in his rulings regarding the interpretation of the Labor Party's rules for candidate selection, and whether certain statements made by Lang were capable of imputing that Willis had been bribed and bought by political opponents. The court also considered whether the occasion on which the statements were made was privileged and whether the jury's verdict for the defendant was reasonable, particularly in light of section 5 of the Defamation Act 1912 (N.S.W.).

A majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ., allowed the appeal. They held that the trial judge was correct in withdrawing from the jury the innuendo that Willis had been bribed and bought by political opponents, finding that the statements made did not support such an imputation. The majority also found that the jury's verdict, which found that the statements were not spoken on an occasion likely to injure the plaintiff's character, was open to them under section 5 of the Defamation Act 1912, given the context of a heated political contest. Starke and Dixon JJ. dissented, arguing that the defamatory statements necessarily injured Willis's character and that the jury's finding to the contrary was unreasonable. They also noted that election speeches to large, unidentified audiences were not necessarily privileged.

The High Court, by a majority, reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and ordered that the appeal be allowed, effectively reinstating the jury's verdict in favour of the appellant, Lang.