Sonda v Signorelli

The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the appellant, Sonda, against the respondent, Signorelli. The core of the dispute revolved around the proper application of section 7A of the *Defamation Act 1974* (NSW) and the circumstances under which a new trial should be ordered under section 126(2) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW). The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in ordering a new trial, and if so, what the correct verdict should be. Specifically, the court had to determine the correct test to be applied when considering whether to grant a new trial on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, and whether the trial judge had improperly substituted their own assessment of the evidence for that of the jury.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the trial judge had misapplied the test for ordering a new trial under section 126(2) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW). The court held that the test requires the judge to determine whether the verdict reached by the jury was one at which no reasonable jury could have arrived, rather than questioning the correctness of the verdict itself. The trial judge's actions were found to have involved an impermissible re-evaluation of the evidence presented to the jury. Consequently, the Court of Appeal concluded that the jury's original verdict should stand.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the District Court judge were set aside. The Court of Appeal ordered that the jury's answers to the questions posed at trial constitute the verdict of the Court, and entered judgment for the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the court below.