Defamation (N.S.W.)—Imputation concerning a person by &hich he is likely to be injured in his trade—Newspaper article—Statement that owner of named restaurant declared bankrupt—Bankrupt an employee of company that owned restaurant—Whether imputation concerning owner of restaurant—Defamation Act, 1958 (N.S.W.), s. 5.
Decisions
1979, Feb. 20. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS J. I would dismiss this appeal for the reasons stated by Mason and Jacobs JJ., with which I am in general agreement. (at p635)
STEPHEN J. I have had the advantage of reading the joint judgment of Mason and Jacobs JJ. I am in agreement with it and would accordingly dismiss this appeal. (at p635)
MASON AND JACOBS JJ. This case has had a chequered history. On 27th September 1973 the defendant published in its newspaper The Australian the following news item: "CAPRICE OWNER DECLARED BANKRUPT BY COURT A Point Piper restaurateur, George Pierce Countis, was declared bankrupt in Sydney yesterday. Countis carries on business at the Caprice Restaurant, Rose Bay. Mr. S. Fiszman of Bondi Junction, claimed in the Bankruptcy Court that Countis owed him $546 as the balance of a debt of $1046. Final judgment on this debt was received in the Sydney District Court on October 12, 1972. Countis did not appear at the hearing but two intervening creditors - the Bank of NSW and the City Bank of California - were represented. Mr. Justice Sweeney made a sequestration order against Countis' estate." The plaintiff, who was at all material times the owner of, and conducted, the restaurant business known as Caprice Restaurant in Sunderland Avenue, Rose Bay, sued the defendant for damages for defamation. By its amended statement of claim the plaintiff asserted that the words "CAPRICE OWNER" in the headline referred to it. No innuendo was pleaded. The principal defence pleaded by the defendant was that the publication was not defamatory of the plaintiff, indeed that it was incapable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. (at p635)
2. At the trial, after the opening address by counsel for the plaintiff had concluded, and before any evidence was led, the trial judge heard argument on the question whether the report was capable of being defamatory of the plaintiff. Argument was presented on the assumption that the owner of the restaurant at all material times was, and was known by some persons to be, the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff was put on the footing that there would be many readers who would read the headline only, without reading the body of the report, and that when the headline was so read it was capable of defaming the plaintiff. The trial judge ruled that the report should be read as a whole and that when it was so read by persons having knowledge that the plaintiff was the owner of the restaurant they…
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 World Hosts Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 3
Case
[1979] HCA 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mirror Newspapers Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the publication of an article in the *Daily Mirror* newspaper, which the respondent, World Hosts Pty Ltd, alleged was defamatory. World Hosts Pty Ltd sought damages for the alleged defamation.
The High Court was required to determine whether the article published by Mirror Newspapers Ltd was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in relation to World Hosts Pty Ltd. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the ordinary reasonable reader of the newspaper would have understood the article to convey meanings that were damaging to the reputation of World Hosts Pty Ltd.
The court applied the established legal principle that a statement is defamatory if it injures a person's reputation in the eyes of respectable members of society. The judges considered the language of the article in its context and the likely understanding of the newspaper's readership. They concluded that the article, when read as a whole, was not capable of conveying a defamatory meaning concerning World Hosts Pty Ltd. The imputation of dishonesty or impropriety, which World Hosts Pty Ltd contended was present, was not reasonably open to the ordinary reader.
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was set aside. The High Court ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant, Mirror Newspapers Ltd, with costs.