Monte v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 209

CITATION: Monte & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 209

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20888 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 18 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 March 2002

PARTIES :

FRANK MONTE
(First Plaintiff)
JAMES MONTE
(Second Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
M Rollinson
(Plaintiffs)
W H Nicholas Q.C.
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Horowitz & Bilinsky
(Plaintiffs)
Freehills
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - imputations - difference in substance - "lying" - "committed perjury" - true innuendo - multiple imputations embarrassing

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers (1982) 2 NSWLR 419
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1977) 2 NSWLR 749
R v Dobos (1984) 58 ACTR 10
R v Charles (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 23 March 1998)
R v Davies (1973) 7 SASR 375
R v Jones (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 23 March 1998)
R v Lewis (1914) 10 Tas LR 48
Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (Hunt J, unreported, 20 February 1980)
The Queen v Baker (1895) 11 QB 797
Versace v Monte [2002] FCA 190

DECISION: See paragraph 26

DLJ: 1

[2002] NSWSC 209

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
D efamation list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 22 MARCH 2002

20888 of 2001

FRANK MONTE
(First Plaintiff)

JAMES MONTE
(Second Plaintiff)

v

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Defamation – imputations – difference in substance – “

lying”

- “

committed perjury”

– true innuendo – multiple imputations embarrassing)

1 By a Statement of Claim filed on 9 November 2001 the plaintiffs seek damages for defamation arising from the publication in “The Sydney Morning Herald” of 8 November 2001 of an article bearing the headline “Versace’s trump card: He met a man who wasn’t there” (together with photographic and other graphic material).

2 The article complained of deals, in general terms for present purposes, with the proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia instituted by members of the Versace family in the quest of relief relating to the anticipated publication of a book by the first plaintiff, “The Spying Game”. As it turns out the judgment on liability in that matter was handed down on 8 March 2002, Versace v Monte [2002] FCA 190, Tamberlin J.

3 The imputations are as follows:

“3(a) the first plaintiff committed perjury in the Federal Court when he gave evidence that he met Gianni Versace on 22 March 1996;

(b) the first plaintiff committed perjury in the Federal Court when he gave evidence that he saw Gianni Versace on 2 July 1996;

(c) the first plaintiff committed perjury in the Federal Court when he gave evidence that he spoke to and met Gianni Versace on 5 July 1996;

(d) the first plaintiff committed perjury in the Federal Court when he gave evidence that he spoke to and met Gianni Versace on 6 August 1996;

(e)…

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 Monte 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: [2002] NSWSC 209
Decision Date: 22 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monte, the plaintiff, initiated legal proceedings against John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, the defendant, due to defamatory statements published in articles in The Sydney Morning Herald. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with examining the nature and implications of these statements. The central issue revolved around whether the defendant's articles contained defamatory imputations that were substantially the same as those previously found defamatory in other contexts. Specifically, the court examined whether phrases such as "lying" and "committed perjury" implied a truth that the plaintiff was a liar and had committed perjury, which were previously found to be defamatory in other cases.

The court focused on whether the imputations in the articles were substantially the same as those found defamatory in prior cases. It was established that the defendant's articles implied that the plaintiff had acted dishonestly and untruthfully. The court determined that the defendant's use of phrases like "lying" and "committed perjury" carried a true innuendo, which meant they implied a truth that was defamatory. The court also considered whether the multiple imputations made in the articles were embarrassing and injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant's articles conveyed defamatory meanings that were substantially the same as those found in previous cases.

The court held that the defendant's articles were indeed defamatory as they implied that the plaintiff had acted dishonestly and untruthfully, which was damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. The court found that the defamatory imputations were not just similar but substantially the same as those previously determined to be defamatory. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff and to publish a correction and apology in The Sydney Morning Herald.

Orders