Mortimer v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2000] NSWSC 612

CITATION: Mortimer v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 612

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Defamation

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 020566/99

HEARING DATE(S): 26 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 July 2000

PARTIES :

David Allen Mortimer
Nationwide News Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr Neil QC/ Mr Caspersonn - Plaintiff
Mr Blackburn - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie - Plaintiff
Blake Dawson Waldron - Defendant

DECISION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DEFAMATION LIST

BELL J
Tuesday, 4 July, 2000

20566/99 David Allen MORTIMER v NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT
1    HER HONOUR: The plaintiff brings proceedings in defamation against the defendant arising out of the publication of three articles in The Australian. The first matter complained of is an article published on 17 August 1999 which the plaintiff claims in its natural and ordinary meaning contained five imputations defamatory of him. The terms of that article are set out in numbered paragraphs in Schedule A to the Statement of Claim. The second article was published on 2 September 1999. The plaintiff contends that in its natural and ordinary meaning it conveys four imputations defamatory of him. It is set out in numbered paragraphs in Schedule B. The third article was published on 12 November 1999. The plaintiff contends that in its natural and ordinary meaning it contains six imputations defamatory of him. It is set out in numbered paragraphs in Schedule C to the Statement of Claim.
2 A number of objections are taken both as to the capacity of the matters complained of to convey and as to the form of certain of the imputations pleaded. The parties agreed to the separate determination of these objections pursuant to Part 31 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.
3    The imputations pleaded with respect to the first matter complained of (Schedule A) are set out in paragraph 4(a)-(e) of the Statement of Claim. Objection is taken to imputations 4(a) and 4(d) upon the basis that the matter complained of is not reasonably capable of conveying either imputation.
4    The article set out in Schedule A is a report of the announcement made by Peter Corrigan (who is described as having been running the GIO for the past seven months) of a $743 million loss sustained by the GIO. The article goes on to state that the loss was the work of the previous management and board. They are described as having fanatically fought off a take-over bid by the AMP. In so doing, it is said that they spent a good deal of shareholders’ money.
5    Imputation 4(a) is pleaded in these terms:

“The plaintiff lied to GIO shareholders in that he, as Chairman of GIO, on 9 December 1998, falsely predicted a profit of $80 million from GIO reinsurance.”

6    Mr Blackburn, who appears on behalf of the defendant, submits that the fundamental problem with this imputation is the assertion that the plaintiff lied to shareholders. He submits that…

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 Mortimer v Nationwide News 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: [2000] NSWSC 612
Decision Date: 4 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales dealt with a defamation case brought by David Allen Mortimer against Nationwide News Pty Ltd. Mortimer alleged that three articles published in The Australian by the defendant contained defamatory imputations concerning his conduct as Chairman of GIO. The court had to determine whether certain imputations pleaded by Mortimer were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the articles to an ordinary reader. Several imputations were objected to by the defendant on grounds that they were not reasonably capable of being conveyed or did not differ in substance from other imputations. The court examined each imputation in light of the articles' content, considering whether an ordinary reader would understand the articles in the defamatory sense pleaded. The court found that certain imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed and would go to the jury, while others were either struck out or deemed not reasonably capable of being conveyed. The court ordered that each party bear their own costs and the matter was stood over for further directions.

The case involved complex questions of defamation law, specifically whether the articles published by the defendant conveyed certain imputations to an ordinary reader. The court carefully considered the articles and the pleaded imputations, applying principles of defamation law to determine the capacity of the articles to convey the imputations and whether certain imputations differed in substance from others. The court's decision on these points was crucial in deciding which imputations would be put to the jury and which would be struck out. The outcome highlighted the importance of the ordinary reader's perspective in defamation cases and the need for careful analysis of the articles and imputations.

Orders