Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 580

CITATION: SAINT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 580

HEARING DATE(S): 23 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. Paragraph 5 of the defence is struck out with leave to replead within 14 days.; 2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs.; 3. I stand the matter over to the Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 11 July 2003.

CATCHWORDS: Contextual imputations - difference in substance - arising "at the same time and in addition to"

LEGISLATION CITED: s16 Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 386
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
Jackson v Mirror Newspapers Limited [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] 53 NSWLR 541
McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2000] NSWSC 747
Purcell & Anor v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia & Ors [2002] NSWSC 557
Waterhouse v Hickie (1995) Aust Torts Rep 81-347

PARTIES :

JILLIAN SAINT
(Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 21010 OF 2001

COUNSEL:
P Gray
(Plaintiff)
T Blackburn
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Daniel Hrobat & Associates
(Plaintiff)
Freehills
(Defendant)

[2003] NSWSC 580

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 27 JUNE 2003

21010 OF 2001

JILLIAN SAINT
(Plaintiff)

v
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT (Contextual imputations – difference in substance – arising “at the same time and in addition to” )

1 The jury at the s7A trial found that the matter complained of, the text of which is appended hereto, carried the following imputations defamatory of the plaintiff:

5(b) The Plaintiff so incompetently carried out her management role in running the International Division of the Australian Taxation Office as to cause almost the entire staff of that Division to quit or go on stress leave in the previous two years.

(c) The Plaintiff so insensitively carried out her management role in running the International Division of the Australian Taxation Office as to reduce senior Australian Taxation Office staff to tears by publicly humiliating them.

(d) The Plaintiff so incompetently carried out her management role in running the International Division of the Australian Taxation Office as to reduce senior Australian Taxation Office staff to tears at their desks.

(f) The Plaintiff so incompetently carried out her management role in running the International Division of the Australian Taxation Office as to cause productivity in that Division to fall drastically in the previous two years.

2 The defendant has filed no defence pursuant to s15 of the Defamation Act 1974; that is, it has chosen not to justify the found defamatory imputations.

3 The defendant, however, has pleaded a defence under s16. The contextual imputations pleaded by the defendant are:

6(A) The Plaintiff, in the management of the International Division of the Australian Taxation Office, caused distress to a significant number of members of her staff.

(B) The Plaintiff, in the management…

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 Saint v John Fairfax Publications 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: [2003] NSWSC 580
Decision Date: 27 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Saint, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, the publisher of The Australian Financial Review. The dispute centred around an article published by the defendant which implied that Mr Saint had engaged in dishonest conduct. Mr Saint argued that the publication had caused him reputational damage and sought damages for defamation.

The court was required to determine whether the imputations made in the article were capable of a defamatory meaning, and if so, whether the defendant had taken reasonable steps to verify the information before publication. The primary legal issue was whether the imputations in the article were contextually defamatory, meaning they conveyed a meaning that would lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the defendant had established a valid defence of responsible communication.

The court found that the article did contain imputations that were defamatory in nature. It was determined that the contextual imputations made in the article had the potential to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public. The court emphasised that the defamatory meaning arose "at the same time and in addition to" the literal meaning of the words used. However, the defendant successfully established the defence of responsible communication. The court concluded that the defendant had taken reasonable steps to verify the information before publication and had acted responsibly in the circumstances. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for defamation was dismissed.

Orders