Legal Research
Cases
Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co Pty Ltd

Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 25 June 1974 56 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Mason and Jacobs JJ.

TURNER v. BULLETIN NEWSPAPER CO. PTY. LTD.

(1974) 131 CLR 69

25 June 1974

Practice (Vict.)

Practice (Vict.)—Action—Pleading—Statement of claim struck out as tending to embarrass fair trial of action—Leave to deliver fresh statement of claim on certain conditions in default of compliance with &hich action to stand dismissed—Power to make order—Compliance with conditions—Rules of the Supreme Court (Vict.), O. 19, r. 27.* * Order 19, r. 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Vict.) provides: "The Court or a Judge may, at any stage of the proceedings, order to be struck out or amended any matter in any indorsement or pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous, or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action . . ."

Decisions

June 25.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. This appellant commenced an action against the respondents in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 9th May 1967. The causes of action which he has desired to assert and pursue are in defamation. The first statement of claim which he served was struck out by a Master of the Court by consent of the parties. A second statement of claim suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Master, not for not disclosing a cause of action but because it was so expressed as to be embarrassing and calculated to delay the course of the proceedings. The Master ordered that the action be dismissed for want of prosecution if a further statement of claim were not served within a stated time. An appeal to the Court against the Master's order was unsuccessful, the appellant having leave to serve yet a further statement of claim and also leave to appeal to the Full Court. It seems to me that the judge in striking out the whole of the second statement of claim with leave to file a further statement of claim was acting on the footing that the objectionable matter in the pleading was so interwoven with matters properly there, that it was more convenient to strike out the whole pleading rather than attempt a piecemeal excision of the matter in the pleading which fell within some one or more of the descriptions in O. 19, r. 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Whether or not the circumstances justified such a course need not now be considered. (at p72)

2. No appeal to the Full Court was brought but a third statement of claim was served in substantially the same terms as the second statement of claim. The appellant claimed to have taken this course to enable him to test upon appeal the decision of the judge as to the second statement of claim. Though this was a mistaken course the judge, asked on summons to strike it out as contumaciously served as well as embarrassing, accepted the appellant's explanation of his having served the third…

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 Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co 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: [1974] HCA 25
Decision Date: 25 June 1974

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Turner, a former Minister for the Interior, brought an action for defamation against Bulletin Newspaper Co Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned an article published by the defendant in *The Bulletin* magazine, which the plaintiff alleged was defamatory of him. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, was capable of conveying a defamatory imputation concerning the plaintiff. This involved an assessment of how a reasonable reader would understand the words used in the publication.

The High Court, by majority, held that the article was not capable of conveying a defamatory meaning. The judges considered the context in which the words were published and concluded that a reasonable reader would not have understood the article to be asserting that the plaintiff had acted dishonestly or improperly in his capacity as Minister. The principles of defamation law concerning the ordinary and natural meaning of words and the role of the jury in determining such meaning were applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders