Sarma v The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd

The appellant, Sarma, brought a defamation action against the respondent, The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd, concerning a published review of a dance performance. A jury found that the imputation conveyed by the review was established but that it was not defamatory. Sarma appealed this decision to 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 the imputation, though established, was not defamatory, was perverse. This required the court to consider the nature of the imputation and whether, as a matter of law, it was capable of being defamatory, and if so, whether the jury's conclusion that it was not defamatory was so unreasonable as to be perverse. The court also had regard to the provisions of the *Defamation Act 1974* (NSW), specifically section 7A, in its consideration of the jury's findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges reasoned that the jury's finding, while perhaps surprising to the appellant, was not so unreasonable as to be perverse. They applied the principle that a jury's finding of fact will only be disturbed if it is demonstrably irrational or unsupported by any evidence. In this instance, the jury was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence and their understanding of contemporary community standards, that the imputation, despite being established as referring to the plaintiff, did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court found no error in the jury's assessment of the defamatory nature of the imputation.