Loo v Rural Press Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 107

CITATION: LOO v RURAL PRESS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 107

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. I hold that the sets of imputations to which reference has been made about, do differ in substance, and I also hold the same having been raised by consent pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2, that each of the imputations is capable of being carried by the matters complained of and is capable of being defamatory.; 2. It thus seems to me appropriate that this matter forthwith be referred to the list to be called up for a 7A trial.; 3. I direct the defendant within 14 days to file its defence to those issues to be determined by the jury in the trial pursuant to s 7A of the Defamation Act.; 4. Pursuant to Pt 31 r 2, I order that there be a trial by jury of the issues of fact to be determined by that tribunal under s7A of the Defamation Act.; 5. I direct that the matter be placed in the list for calling up for fixing of the date for that trial, and I direct that upon such date being fixed, no later than 14 days prior thereto, the parties have exchanged outlines of evidence in relation to the two innuendo cases.; 6. I also direct that no later than 14 days prior to the date fixed for the 7A trial, the defendant inform the plaintiff whether or not there will be in issue the fact that the defendant published the four publications relied upon. Any such admission as to publication of the articles will not be an admission by the defendant that the material it published carried the pleaded imputations or that they were defamatory.; 7. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs.

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - difference in substance - test - "suspicion" imputations - identity of holders of suspicion

CASES CITED: Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited, (unreported, 20 February 1980)

PARTIES :

RONALD LOO
(Plaintiff)
v
RURAL PRESS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20458 OF 2002

COUNSEL:
M Richardson
(Plaintiff)
T Hale SC
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Margiotta Solicitors
(Plaintiff)
Gilbert & Tobin
(Defendant)

- 5 -

Ex tempore: revised

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2003

20458 OF 2002

RONALD LOO
(Plaintiff)

v

RURAL PRESS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - difference in substance – test –

“suspicion”

imputations - identity of holders of suspicion)

1 The plaintiff has instituted proceedings against the defendant in relation to four publications. The first publication was in the Northern Daily Leader on 25 August 2002, the second is in the same newspaper on 30 August 2002, the third publication on 30 August 2002 is constituted by a poster, and the fourth publication also was on 30 August 2002.

2 The relevant imputations in dispute pleaded in respect of the first matter complained of…

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 Loo v Rural Press Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Loo v Rural Press Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 107
Case: [2003] NSWSC 107
Decision Date: 20 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Loo v Rural Press Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Loo, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, Rural Press Pty Ltd, which published articles in a newspaper. The articles suggested that Loo was involved in criminal activities and had connections to an organised crime syndicate. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate test for establishing defamation where the imputations in question involved suspicion rather than certainty.

The central issue before the court was whether the imputations made by the defendant were defamatory and, if so, whether the plaintiff needed to prove the identity of the holders of the suspicion to establish the defamatory imputation. This involved assessing the distinction between imputations that suggest a fact is suspected and those that assert a fact with certainty, and the extent to which the plaintiff's reputation could be harmed by the former.

The court held that the imputations were defamatory as they conveyed a meaning that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activities, which could lower the plaintiff's standing in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court further clarified that for suspicion imputations, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the imputations have been communicated to a significant number of people, but does not need to identify the specific individuals who hold the suspicion. The court emphasised that the defamatory nature of suspicion imputations lies in the harm to reputation caused by the mere suggestion of involvement in wrongdoing. The court found in favour of the plaintiff, affirming that the imputations were defamatory and that the plaintiff's reputation had been harmed by the publication.

Orders