McBride v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd - [2007] NSWSC 717

CITATION: McBride v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 717
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 11 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
5 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Price J at 1

DECISION: 1. The notice of motion is dismissed. 2. Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of this motion. 3. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the motion dated 27 June 2007.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 s 16, s 16(2)(c)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 14.28

CASES CITED: Allen v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (NSWSC 2/12/88 Hunt J, unreported)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor v Hodgkinson [2005] NSWCA 190
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) & Ors (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 386
Jackson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited & Anor v Jones [2004] NSWCA 205
Maisel v Financial Times Limited (No 1) (1915) 84 LJKB 2145
McBride v ABC (2000) NSWSC 747
NRMA Insurance Ltd v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (unreported 14 July 1989)
Waterhouse & Anor v Hickie (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-347

PARTIES: William Griffith McBride
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 013029 of 1989

COUNSEL: Mr Hale SC - Plaintiff
Mr T D Blackburn SC - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRICE J

5 July 2007
013029 of 1989 William Griffith McBride

v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In an amended statement of claim the plaintiff has pleaded the following imputations each of which is said to arise from the article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 August 1989. (‘the article’) and is asserted to be defamatory of the plaintiff:

“4….

(a) The plaintiff dishonestly represented that the original data upon which his MD thesis was based was collected by himself and not by the director of the Sterility Clinic at Crown Street, Dr Alan Grant;

(b) The plaintiff dishonestly claimed to have carried out research on the drug Thalidomide which was in fact research carried out by Dr McCredie;

2 The defendant pleads in an amended defence the following contextual imputations:

“9. The matter complained of conveyed the following imputations of and concerning the plaintiff:

(a) The plaintiff had dishonestly failed to acknowledge Dr McCredie’s predominant role in discovering how Thalidomide caused limb abnormalities in children;

(b) The plaintiff was a dishonest researcher;

(d) The plaintiff lacked scientific integrity.”

3 By a notice of motion filed on 1 May 2007 the plaintiff seeks an order that paragraph 9 and particulars P22 – P28 – the defence of contextual truth – and P40 be…

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 McBride v John Fairfax Group 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: [2007] NSWSC 717
Decision Date: 5 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McBride v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from an article published by John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd, which was alleged to have defamed McBride. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the published article contained defamatory imputations, the application of contextual truth as a defence, and the role of qualified privilege in the context of the imputations. McBride, the plaintiff, sought damages for the alleged defamation, while John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd, the defendant, argued that the publication was fair and responsible, and that the imputations were substantially true.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the article published by the defendant contained defamatory imputations, whether the imputations were substantially true, and whether the publication was protected by qualified privilege. The court was required to assess the context in which the imputations were made and determine whether the defence of contextual truth was applicable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the publication was made in the public interest and whether it was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held that the article contained defamatory imputations, which were that McBride had engaged in improper conduct. However, the court found that the imputations were substantially true and that the defendant had acted responsibly in publishing them. The court emphasised the importance of contextual truth in defamation cases and noted that the imputations were not only true but were also contextually true. The court also found that the publication was protected by qualified privilege, as it was made in the public interest and was a fair and accurate report of the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed McBride's claim for defamation.

The court did not make any orders for damages or costs, as the defences of contextual truth and qualified privilege were found to be applicable. The outcome of the case highlights the significance of the defences of contextual truth and qualified privilege in defamation cases and underscores the importance of responsible journalism.

Orders