Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer - [2011] QCA 286

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer [2011] QCA 286

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
ACN 009 661 778
(appellant)
v
ROSS LESLIE PALMER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2666 of 2011
SC No 11248 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – where the respondent claimed damages for defamation against the appellant in respect of material published in a newspaper – where the appellant sought to strike out six of seven imputations pleaded by the respondent – where the application was dismissed by the primary judge – where the appellant appeals that decision on the ground that the primary judge erred in law – whether the imputations were capable of being conveyed by the publication to the ordinary reasonable reader

Capital & Counties Bank Ltd v George Henty & Sons (1882) 7 App Cas 741, cited
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716; (2005) 221 ALR 186; [2005] HCA 52, cited
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485, cited
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, applied
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293; [1982] HCA 50 cited
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632; [1979] HCA 3, cited

COUNSEL:

B R McClintock SC, with P J McCafferty, for the appellant
P J Flanagan SC, with AR Lonergan, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the appellant
Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Boddice J's reasons for dismissing this appeal.

A pleaded imputation in a claim for defamation will be struck out only when an ordinary reasonable reader could not draw the imputation. If an ordinary reasonable reader could draw the imputation, it does not matter that the court would not. The article claimed to be defamatory was in a light-hearted business gossip column featuring a related witty caricature. In that context, the ordinary reasonable reader may well consider it to be satirical, teasing and ironic with an element of Schadenfreude and not intended to be taken literally. In this case, different minds could reasonably reach different conclusions as to whether the pleaded imputations are to be drawn from the article. But as the primary judge identified and as Boddice J explains in his reasons, it cannot be said that the ordinary reasonable reader, unequivocally could not draw the pleaded imputations.

I agree with the order proposed by Boddice J.

MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Boddice J.

BODDICE J: By amended…

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 Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer 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: [2011] QCA 286
Decision Date: 14 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this matter was brought by Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, trading as the Courier-Mail, against Clive Palmer, the respondent. The dispute arose from an action for defamation brought by the respondent against the appellant in relation to material published in a newspaper. The respondent sought damages for defamation based on several imputations made in the published material. The appellant sought to strike out six of the seven imputations that the respondent pleaded, arguing they were not capable of conveying the defamatory meaning to an ordinary reasonable reader. The primary judge dismissed the appellant's application to strike out the imputations. The appellant then appealed this decision, asserting that the primary judge had erred in law by holding that the imputations were capable of being conveyed by the publication to the ordinary reasonable reader.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the primary judge had correctly determined that the six imputations in question were capable of being conveyed by the publication to an ordinary reasonable reader. The court had to assess whether the primary judge's interpretation of the meaning of the publication, as understood by the ordinary reader, was correct. This involved a detailed analysis of the language used in the publication and its potential impact on the reader. The appellant argued that the primary judge had misinterpreted the publication, resulting in an incorrect conclusion that the imputations were capable of being understood by the ordinary reader. The court needed to determine whether the primary judge had erred in law by reaching a different conclusion than the one the appellant proposed.

The court examined the primary judge's interpretation of the publication and the imputations in question. It found that the primary judge had carefully considered the context in which the publication appeared and the ordinary reader's understanding of it. The court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the six imputations were capable of being conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader. The court emphasised that the primary judge's conclusion was based on a thorough analysis of the publication and its meaning, which was consistent with the principles of defamation law. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the primary judge had not erred in law. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer [2011] QCA 286
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD ACN 009 661 778 (appellant) v ROSS LESLIE PALMER (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 2666 of 2011 SC No 11248 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 August 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – PARTICULAR STATEMENTS – IMPUTATION – where the respondent claimed damages for defamation against the appellant in respect of material published in a newspaper – where the appellant sought to strike out six of seven imputations pleaded by the respondent – where the application was dismissed by the primary judge – where the appellant appeals that decision on the ground that the primary judge erred in law – whether the imputations were capable of being conveyed by the publication to the ordinary reasonable reader Capital & Counties Bank Ltd v George Henty & Sons (1882) 7 App Cas 741, cited Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716; (2005) 221 ALR 186; [2005] HCA 52, cited Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485, cited Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, applied Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293; [1982] HCA 50 cited Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632; [1979] HCA 3, cited
COUNSEL:	B R McClintock SC, with P J McCafferty, for the appellant P J Flanagan SC, with AR Lonergan, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Thynne & Macartney for the appellant Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the respondent