Lucas v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2000] NSWSC 950

CITATION: Lucas v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 950

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20168 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): 24 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 October 2000

PARTIES :

PETER CHARLES LUCAS
(Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
T Blackburn
(Plaintiff)
B McClintock S.C.
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Piper Alderman
(Plaintiff)
Freehills Solicitors
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Matters complained of - juxtaposed articles - form of pleading - Burrows v Knightley - imputations - form - capacity

CASES CITED: Burrows v Knightley (1987) 10 NSWLR 610
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1981) 1 NSWLR 36
Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (unreported, Hunt J, 20 February 1980)

DECISION: See paragraph 44

DLJ: 1
[2000] NSWSC 950

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

No. 20168 of 2000

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 13 OCTOBER 2000

PETER CHARLES LUCAS
(Plaintiff)

v
John Fairfax Publications PTY Limited
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Matters complained of - juxtaposed articles - form of pleading - Burrows v Knightley - imputations - form - capacity)

1 The first matter complained of in respect of which the plaintiff sues is an article which appeared on page 4 of The Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 11 March 2000 bearing the headline “Jail just a sentence in the book of life” by Joseph Kerr. Reliance is also placed upon the photograph of Alan Bond leaving Karnet Prison Farm and the caption. 2 The second matter complained of upon which the plaintiff sues is made up of two articles published in the same edition of the newspaper. The first article which appears on page 1 and 4 bears the headline, “He’s back, flash as a rat with a gold tooth”; the second article is “Jail just a sentence in the book of life” which, separately, constitutes the first matter complained of. 3 As I understand, it the basis upon which the plaintiff sues in respect of the first matter complained of is that it is defamatory of him. 4 The basis upon which the plaintiff sues in respect of the second matter complained of is the juxtaposition of the first article together with the second article on page 4 amounts to a single “matter complained of” intended by the publisher to be read together by readers of its newspaper. 5 The first part of the second matter complained of, namely, the first article (“… flash as a rat…”) is conceded by the plaintiff, by itself to be incapable of defaming him. 6 Confusion arises in the present Statement of Claim by reference to the “flash as a rat” article as the second matter complained of. The second matter complained of is a composite of both articles, the first matter complained of is the “Jail just a sentence in the book of life” article. 7 It is contended by the defendant, the “terminology” in the pleading having been…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lucas v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 950
Decision Date: 13 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Lucas v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd revolved around the publication of articles by the respondent, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, which the applicant, Lucas, claimed were defamatory. Lucas sought damages for the alleged defamation and an apology from the respondent. The case was heard by Justice Gilmour who had to decide on several legal issues pertinent to defamation law, particularly focusing on the form of pleading in defamation cases, the implications of juxtaposed articles, and the specific imputations made in the articles.

The primary legal issues involved whether the articles published by the respondent contained defamatory imputations, and if so, whether the applicant had sufficiently pleaded those imputations. The court also considered whether the juxtaposition of the articles created a defamatory meaning that was not apparent in the individual articles. Furthermore, the court examined the capacity in which the applicant should be considered when assessing the truth and harm of the imputations.

Justice Gilmour ruled that the articles did indeed contain defamatory imputations. However, he found that the applicant had not sufficiently pleaded the defamatory imputations, particularly in relation to the juxtaposition of the articles. The court concluded that the applicant had not identified specific words or phrases in the articles that were defamatory, nor had he adequately linked the articles together to show how they created a defamatory meaning. Additionally, the court determined that the applicant's capacity as a public figure influenced the assessment of the imputations, as the standard for establishing defamation was higher in such cases. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for defamation.

Orders