Mann v The Medicine Group Pty Limited - [1993] HCATrans 6

•

.
~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No C24 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
ARNOLD MANN

Applicant

and
THE MEDICINE GROUP PTY LIMITED

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

BRENNAN J
DEANE J

DAWSON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 1993, AT 12.13 PM

Mann

4/2/93

MR R.E. WILLIAMS, QC: If it please the Court, I appear for

the applicant. (instructed by Minter Ellison
Morris Fletcher)

MR B.R. McCLINTOCK:

May it please the Court, I appear for

the respondent. (instructed by Abbott Tout Russell
Kennedy)

MR WILLIAMS:

Your Honours, I take it that it is appropriate

in an application for special leave to hand up to
the Court a short outline of submissions?

BRENNAN J: It does no harm at all, Mr Williams.

MR WILLIAMS: Well, I do so, Your Honour. I previously

provided my learned friend with a copy.

Your Honour, there are four points. Points 1

and 2 are directed to establishing that the
approach reflected in the judgments from which
leave to appeal is sought is wrong, or at least at
odds with the English decisions in relation to
proving publication of an individual in group

libel. So it follows that if Your Honours accept
that argument, there being no authoritative
statement from this Court on those issues, it is a matter of importance that there be some definitive statement.
The speeches in Knupffer and Morgan suggest,

indeed urge, that an uncomplicated test be
maintained in relation to identification. That is,
that there be no gloss and no elaboration on first
principles. Thus, it is unnecessary to first
determine whether the class of persons subject to
the libel be determinate or indeterminate, or
whether it be a mass libel - whatever that may
mean - and, particularly in the circumstances of
the present case, there is no basis for a test

requiring a plaintiff to establish that the words
complained of were aimed at him or her as an
individual or point particularly to him and her.
Indeed, such a test was specifically rejected in
Morgan's case, though it is the test which
ultimately Mr Justice Wilcox failed the applicant
on in the present case.
My submission is this, that Mr Justice Miles approached the case correctly below. Having regard
to all of the facts, and not being unduly confined
to the words, His Honour held that the reasonable
reader, or the ordinary sensible reader in this
instance, was a reader with special knowledge, and
could reasonably conclude that the letter referred
to the plaintiff. That was all, we say, is
required by the English authorities.

Mann

4/2/93

The introduction of the concept of intention

is both an error and misleading. I appreciate it
is trite to submit that it is not necessary to
prove that a publisher intends to refer to a
plaintiff, but it does not·matter whether the
publisher knows of the…

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 Mann v The Medicine Group Pty Limited 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: [1993] HCATrans 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, The Medicine Group Pty Limited, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision concerning defamation. The dispute centred on whether a publication, which was in general circulation and addressed a matter of public debate, was defamatory of an individual. The applicant argued that the approach taken by the lower court was inconsistent with English authorities on proving publication in cases of group libel.

The legal issues before the High Court involved determining the correct test for establishing that defamatory words published generally were intended to refer to a particular individual. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether it was necessary for a plaintiff to prove that the words complained of were aimed at them as an individual or pointed particularly to them, or whether a less stringent test, as suggested by English decisions like *Knupffer* and *Morgan*, should be applied. The applicant contended that the lower court's judgment, which required proof that the author had the plaintiff particularly in mind, introduced an erroneous concept of intent.

The applicant submitted that the correct approach, as reflected in the reasoning of Mr Justice Miles below, was to consider all the facts and whether an ordinary reader with special knowledge could reasonably conclude that the publication referred to the plaintiff. This, it was argued, aligned with English authorities and did not require proof of the publisher's intention or foresight regarding the specific individual. The applicant maintained that the test applied by Mr Justice Wilcox, which focused on whether the author had the plaintiff in mind, was an error as it indirectly introduced the concept of intent. The High Court was therefore asked to provide a definitive statement on these issues, as there was no authoritative ruling from the High Court on the matter.

Orders