Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 312

CITATION: Saint v John Fairfax Publications P/L [2002] NSWSC 312

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 21010/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15/04/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 April 2002

PARTIES :

Jillian Saint (Pl)
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited (Def)

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

COUNSEL : P W Gray (Pl)
T Blackburn (Def)

SOLICITORS: Agostini Jarrett Pty Ltd (Pl)
Richard Coleman (Def)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - Imputations - Whether different in substance - Test

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services P/L (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (unreported, 20.2.80)
Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311
Hepburn v TCN Channel 9 P/L (1984) 1 NSWLR 386

DECISION: Ref para 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
defamation list
KIRBY J

Monday 22 April 2002

21010/01 - JILLIAN SAINT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 KIRBY J: This is an application by John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited (the defendant) to strike out imputations in a Statement of Claim issued on behalf of Ms Jillian Saint (the plaintiff). The defendant asserts that the imputations are either incapable of arising or do not differ in substance.

The Publication

2 The action arises out of the publication by the defendant in the Sun Herald of 5 August 2001 of the following newspaper article:

Almost the entire staff of an elite Australian Tax Office department has quit or gone on stress leave in the past two years.

Conditions in the International Division on the Ninth floor of Centrepoint in the Sydney CBD are so bad that an independent investigator has been appointed.

Senior tax officials have been reduced to tears at their desks and claim the department is 'a very unhappy ship indeed'.

The department's health and safety representative has issued three improvement notices.

In the latest notice he wrote: 'Over the last two years I have been requested to assist five distraught people from the Ninth floor of Centrepoint and in particular from the International Tax Division.

'Since first contacting the Deputy Commissioner another member of the ITD staff has gone on what I believe to be four weeks' stress-related leave.'

The department is run by Assistant Commissioner Jillian Saint, who took sick leave last week as independent consultant Peter Grills conducted his inquiry.

Ms Saint's executive assistant is on stress leave and was joined last week by her personal assistant.

One member of staff said: 'I have seen senior tax officers with years of experience, men in their 50's, weeping at their desk after being publicly humiliated.'

The staff member estimated that in two years 20 staff from the department had taken stress leave, extended leave, resigned or requested transfers. Not one of the 15 staff who were in the department two years ago is there today.

'Productivity has gone through the floor because of all the upset' the officer said. 'The International Tax Division is supposed to…

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: [2002] NSWSC 312
Decision Date: 22 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a media company. The plaintiff alleged that an article published by the defendant defamed her by imputing that she was involved in criminal activities. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the article contained defamatory imputations that were different in substance from those previously considered by the courts, while the defendant argued that the imputations were substantially the same as those previously considered.

The legal issue before the court was whether the imputations in the article were substantially different from those previously considered in defamation cases. The court was required to apply the test for determining whether imputations are substantially the same, which involves considering whether the imputations have the same sting or whether they are substantially the same in substance. The court had to determine whether the article's imputations had the same sting as those previously considered by the courts or whether they were different in substance.

The court found that the imputations in the article were substantially the same as those previously considered by the courts. The court held that the test for determining whether imputations are substantially the same involves considering whether the imputations have the same sting or whether they are substantially the same in substance. The court found that the article's imputations had the same sting as those previously considered by the courts, and therefore, the imputations were not substantially different. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for defamation. The court found that the article's imputations were not substantially different from those previously considered by the courts and that the plaintiff's claim for defamation was dismissed. The court did not make any orders for costs.

Orders