Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Jools - [1985] FCA 181

Re: MIRROR NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
And: IRVING NICO JOOLS
No. ACT G329 of 1984
Damages - Defamation
5 FCR 507

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fox(1), Gallop(2) and Spender(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Damages - defamation - libel published in three newspapers - calculation of damages against one defendant - whether apportionment of damages for non-pecuniary loss was, or ought to have been made.

Defamation Act 1974 (N.S.W.) ss.13, 46, 48.

Defamation - Damages - Defamatory matter published in three newspapers - Action pending as to the other two publications - Pecuniary loss attributed to all defamations - Certain percentage attributed to defendant by trial judge - Non-pecuniary loss assessed in relation to the defendant's defamation alone - Appeal - Whether damages for non-pecuniary loss should have been discounted - Compensation for loss of reputation - Whether causing both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss - Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss 13, 46, 48.

HEADNOTE

Three newspapers published the same defamatory material. The trial judge in an action against one of them attributed 30 per cent of the proven damage for pecuniary loss to the defendant, and in respect of non-pecuniary loss awarded $80,000 for loss of reputation and distress which he attributed solely to the publication by the defendant.

On appeal by the defendant on quantum of damages for non-pecuniary loss,

Held: (1) (Per curiam.) In response to the appellant's claim that loss of reputation resulted only in pecuniary loss, several possible areas of harm to the respondent over and above pecuniary loss could be enumerated including damage to his professional reputation and to his acceptance in society, injury to his health and the ordeal of litigation generally as well as aggravation of some of these factors by lack of publication of a proper correction and apology.

(2) In response to the appellant's claim that the award for non-pecuniary damages should have been discounted in similar fashion to the pecuniary damages, held that while s 48 of the Defamation Act 1974 sanctions division of damages between co-publishers in certain circumstances, the outcome of proceedings against the other publishers was too speculative and the trial judge was only obliged to be reasonably sure that the damage he awarded could be fairly attributed to the defendant solely.

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (1964) AC 234, referred to.

HEARING

Canberra, 1985, March 20, 21; May 6. #DATE 6:5:1985
APPEAL

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in which damages for defamation were awarded to the respondent against the appellant.

A. B. Shand QC and J. R. Sackar, for the appellant.

T. E. F. Hughes QC and T. K. Tobin, for the respondent.

Cur adv vult

Solicitors for the appellant: Macphillamy, Cummins and Gibson.

Solicitors for the respondent: Gallens.

GFV

ORDER

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed with costs

JUDGE1

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court 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 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Jools

Details

AGLC: Mirror Newspapers Ltd v. Jools, I.N. [1985] FCA 181 (5 FCR 507)
Case: [1985] FCA 181
Decision Date: 06 MAY 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mirror Newspapers Limited v Jools, the respondent, a well-known public figure, sought damages for defamation against the appellant, a publisher of three newspapers. The respondent alleged that the appellant published a defamatory statement in three separate newspapers. The primary dispute was whether the damages awarded to the respondent should be apportioned among the appellant and the other publishers. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the trial judge awarded damages to the respondent but did not apportion the damages among the defendants.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have apportioned the damages for non-pecuniary loss among the defendants. The appellant argued that the damages should be apportioned among the multiple publishers, while the respondent contended that the trial judge was not obliged to apportion the damages. The court had to consider the principles of joint and several liability and the apportionment of damages in defamation cases, as well as the applicable statutory provisions and common law principles.

The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to apportion the damages for non-pecuniary loss among the defendants. The court noted that the statutory provisions and common law principles did not require apportionment in this case. The court further held that the respondent's non-pecuniary loss was not exacerbated by the publication in multiple newspapers, and that the respondent had not suffered additional harm as a result of the multiple publications. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision not to apportion the damages was not an error of law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court held that the trial judge's decision was correct, and that there was no basis for the appellant to appeal the decision. The court further held that the respondent was entitled to recover the full amount of damages awarded by the trial judge, without any apportionment among the defendants. The court's decision clarified the principles of joint and several liability and the apportionment of damages in defamation cases, and provided guidance for future cases involving multiple publishers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.