Triggell v Pheeney

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute originated in an action for libel brought by Daniel Triggell against Arthur James Pheeney. Triggell, a dairy farmer, sued Pheeney, the owner of the farm Triggell share-farmed, for damages totalling £2,000, alleging that Pheeney had written and published a defamatory letter about him to a third party.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the assessment of damages, specifically concerning the defendant's conduct during the trial, and whether the damages awarded by the jury were so excessive as to warrant a new trial. The Supreme Court had previously set aside the jury's verdict and ordered a new trial on the grounds of excessive damages and misdirection.

The High Court considered the principles governing the assessment of damages in defamation cases, particularly the extent to which a defendant's conduct, including their defence and testimony at trial, could be taken into account by a jury. The Court referenced the authority of *Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. v. McGregor*, holding that while conduct that is bona fide and justifiable cannot be used to increase damages, the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings, including at trial, may be considered if it demonstrates a lack of bona fides or is otherwise improper or unjustifiable. The Court found that it was open to the jury to infer from Pheeney's conduct and testimony that he lacked genuine belief in the allegations against Triggell and was improperly persevering in his defence. The Court also addressed the question of excessive damages, noting that juries are afforded considerable latitude in assessing general damages for injury to reputation and that a new trial should only be granted if the award is such that no reasonable body of people could have reached it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court held that the trial judge's directions regarding the assessment of damages were not erroneous and that the jury's award of £1,955 was not so excessive as to justify setting aside the verdict. Consequently, the original verdict for the plaintiff was reinstated.