Leigh v Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd

In the case of Leigh v Bruder Expedition Pty Ltd, the appellant, Ms Leigh, was found liable by a jury in the District Court for publishing malicious falsehoods about the respondent, a seller of off-road caravans. The jury found that Ms Leigh had published statements that the respondent’s caravans were defective, of poor quality, unsafe, and overpriced with the intention of causing financial harm to the respondent. The jury awarded the respondent $357,000 in damages. Ms Leigh appealed against the decision on several grounds, including that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the appropriate standard of proof, improperly admitted evidence of the respondent’s loss of profits, and erred in permitting an amendment to the statement of claim.

The legal issues in the appeal revolved around whether the jury was properly directed on the standard of proof, whether the evidence of loss of profits was admissible, and whether the trial judge correctly allowed amendments to the statement of claim. Ms Leigh argued that the jury was misdirected on the standard of proof, contending that the trial judge should have directed the jury in terms of the well-known principle articulated by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. She further argued that the evidence of loss of profits was inadmissible because the graphs presented as evidence were not prepared by the witness and the witness could not explain the basis for the expected sales or the timing of the expectations. Lastly, Ms Leigh contended that the trial judge erred in permitting amendments to the statement of claim relating to the respondent’s loss and damage, as these amendments altered the nature of the case and prejudiced her.

The Court found that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the appropriate standard of proof, as the judge did not adequately explain the standard of proof required for malicious falsehood claims. The Court also found that the evidence of loss of profits was inadmissible because it was not properly authenticated and the witness could not adequately explain the basis for the expected sales figures. Finally, the Court found that the amendments to the statement of claim were improper as they introduced new issues that were not part of the original case. These errors were significant enough to warrant setting aside the orders made by the trial judge and dismissing the respondent’s claim. The Court further ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the appellant both at trial and on appeal.