Norton v Hoare

This case concerned an application for leave to appeal to the High Court from interlocutory orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria in a libel action. The plaintiff, Benjamin Hoare, sued the defendant, John Norton, for an article published in Norton's newspaper, Truth. Norton raised defences including that the article was a fair and bona fide comment on matters of public interest and a defence in reply to an article allegedly published by Hoare in another newspaper, The Tribune.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether leave to appeal should be granted from three specific orders of the Supreme Court. These orders related to the admissibility and requirement to answer interrogatories administered by both parties. Specifically, the court considered whether interrogatories concerning the defendant's intention in publishing the alleged libel, the identification of matters of public interest, and the contents and alterations of a prior manuscript were properly allowed or disallowed by the lower court.

The High Court held that leave to appeal would not be granted where an appeal, if it were an appeal as of right, would be hopeless. The court found that an interrogatory asking whether the alleged libel was intended to refer to the plaintiff was admissible as it was relevant to express malice. Similarly, an interrogatory asking the defendant to identify the "matters of public interest" relied upon in his defence was also admissible, as the defendant was obliged to specify the factual basis for this defence. However, the court declined to rule on amended interrogatories at that stage, stating it could not act as a court of first instance for determining the admissibility of new questions. Regarding interrogatories administered by the defendant, the court found them inadmissible, particularly those seeking the contents of existing documents or information already addressed in the pleadings, and where it was not shown that the plaintiff possessed the documents or that the defendant lacked means to obtain them.

Leave to appeal was refused in relation to the orders of Hood J. and Madden C.J. The court determined that the appeal on these interlocutory matters would be hopeless, and therefore, leave to appeal was denied.