Ramrakha v Chaudhry - [2006] NSWCA 42

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: RAMRAKHA v CHAUDHRY [2006] NSWCA 42

FILE NUMBER(S):
40465/05

HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2006

DECISION DATE: 10/03/2006

PARTIES:
Karam Chand Ramrakha - Appellant
Mahendra Chaudhry - First Respondent
National Farmers Union - Second Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA Ipp JA Basten JA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 20309/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Patten AJ

COUNSEL:
Mr S. M. Littlemore QC/Mr M. K. Rollinson - Appellant
Mr T.D.F. Hughes - Respondents

SOLICITORS:
Ramrakha Jenkins, Sydney - Appellant
Harish Prasad & Associates, Parramatta - Respondents

CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION - jury did not accept an imputation was conveyed - whether jury's finding was one that no reasonable jury could reach - jury's decision was reasonably open to it.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s7A

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40465/05
SC 20309/04
GILES JA
IPP JA
BASTEN JA
10 March 2006

KARAM CHAND RAMRAKHA v MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY & ANOR

Judgment

GILES JA: The reasons of Basten JA, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft, describe the question raised on the appeal, and set out from the book the critical passage at p 130 and other passages material to whether it was open to the jury to reject imputation (a). To those passages may be added the discussion at pp 100-109 of the passing through Parliament in August-October 1976, about a year prior to the 1977 election, of a Bill concerned with land tenure.
The book says at p 108 that the NFP was divided, and that a deferment in consideration of the Bill “allowed the rift within the NFP time to solidify into two bitter factions”. Mr Koya and a number of others were named as members of one faction, and Mr Ramrakha and others were named as members of the other faction. It was said -
“The split rocked the Indian community as both sides became vociferous in their opposition to each other. Meetings were held throughout the cane belt by both factions seeking farmers’ support. The issue provided further fodder to K C Ramrakha’s ambition to wrest the leadership from Koya and he mounted a challenge in the weeks and months that ensued.
Also at p 108 the book told of a call on Mr Koya to resign as party leader and his response, followed by -
“Two days later K C Ramrakha came lashing back at Koya claiming he was ‘completely disillusioned’ with the leader and expressing no confidence in him”.
Ultimately the Bill was passed, and it was said at p 109 -
“The controversy over ALTA drove a deep and irrevocable rift within the National Federation Party, splitting it into what later became the Dove and the Flower factions. Although time and again after this, the party was to present a united front, the veneer was too thin to last, so rancorous had been the scars…

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.

Continue reading Ramrakha v Chaudhry

Details

AGLC: Ramrakha v Chaudhry [2006] NSWCA 42
Case: [2006] NSWCA 42
Decision Date: 10 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Ramrakha (appellant) and Chaudhry (respondent). The dispute concerned an appeal against a jury's verdict in a defamation proceeding. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the jury's finding, that a particular imputation alleged by the appellant was not conveyed by the respondent's words, was a finding that no reasonable jury could have reached. The appellant contended that the jury's verdict was perverse and unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence presented at trial and the jury's role in determining the meaning of the words complained of and whether those meanings were conveyed. The Court affirmed that a jury's finding on the meaning of words and whether an imputation is conveyed is a question of fact. It will only be overturned on appeal if it is demonstrably unreasonable, meaning no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached that conclusion. In this instance, the Court found that the jury's decision was reasonably open to it, based on the evidence and the instructions provided.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.