Watney v Kencian

In the case of Watney v Kencian, the applicant, a private school principal, initiated proceedings against the respondents for defamation based on a letter that was published to the Director-General of the Queensland Department of Education and subsequently republished to the Chairperson of the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board. The applicant contended that the letter conveyed various meanings about him, which he deemed defamatory. The jury found that the letter conveyed the meanings alleged by the applicant, but concluded that none of these meanings were defamatory. The applicant challenged the jury's conclusion, arguing that it was perverse and that a reasonable jury could not have reached such a conclusion given the character and seriousness of the imputations and the context in which they were conveyed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's findings that none of the proven meanings was defamatory were ones that no reasonable jury could make, and if so, whether this caused a substantial injustice to the applicant. The applicant contended that the jury's findings were so contrary to the evidence that they warranted a new trial. The respondents, however, argued that the principle of proportionality, derived from the decision in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc, should be invoked to permanently stay the proceeding, rather than order a new trial. The court needed to determine whether to decline ordering a retrial based on this principle.

The court found that the jury's findings were indeed perverse, as no reasonable jury could have concluded that the meanings were not defamatory given the evidence presented. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury's findings were not based on an error of law or a perverse interpretation of the evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the judgment entered on 3 August 2016 and substituted affirmative answers for the jury's findings. The court ordered a new trial limited to the pleaded defences of qualified privilege and honest opinion, and, if applicable, damages. The respondents were also ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the appeal, including the application for leave to appeal. Costs of and incidental to the proceeding at first instance were reserved to await the outcome of a new trial or further order in the event the matter did not proceed to trial.