Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Limited

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Morgan, had brought a defamation action against the respondent, John Fairfax & Sons Limited. A jury had returned a general verdict in favour of Mr Morgan, awarding him $150,000 in damages. However, the trial judge subsequently upheld the respondent's defence of statutory qualified privilege and entered a verdict for the respondent.

The legal issues before the High Court revolved around the decision of the Court of Appeal. Mr Morgan appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the trial judge's finding on statutory qualified privilege and to reinstate the jury's verdict. The Court of Appeal, by majority, did set aside the trial judge's decision, finding that she had incorrectly determined disputed facts that should have been left to the jury. However, the Court of Appeal did not reinstate the jury's verdict or the damages awarded. Instead, it ordered a new trial on all grounds.

The Court of Appeal's reasoning for ordering a new trial was based on two main grounds. Firstly, it found that the respondent had failed to put proper questions to the jury regarding the defence of statutory qualified privilege, and that the applicant had participated in this omission by not reminding the respondent's counsel of this failure. Secondly, the Court of Appeal adopted a narrow interpretation of the "reasonable publication" element of the statutory qualified privilege defence under section 22(1)(c) of the Defamation Act. It held that an honest belief in the truth of the publication by the author could, in itself, be sufficient to establish reasonable publication, a finding that the applicant argued was contrary to Privy Council authority.