Webb v Bloch

The plaintiff, Thomas Henry Webb, chairman of the South Australian Wheat Compensation Committee, brought an action for libel against the defendants, Mark Bloch, Joseph Cleveland Pratt, F. v. Murphy, and H. S. Crocker, who were members of a similar Victorian Committee. The dispute arose from the publication of a circular containing statements alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff, concerning his role in the abandonment of legal proceedings against the South Australian Government for alleged negligence in handling wheat. The case was heard by Starke J. in the Supreme Court of South Australia, who found in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Full Court.

The Full Court was required to determine several legal issues. Primarily, it had to consider whether the defendants were jointly liable for the publication of the defamatory circular, even though some of them had not seen its contents before publication. The court also had to assess whether the occasion of publication was privileged, and if so, whether that privilege was defeated by malice. A further issue was the extent to which the malice of an agent, in this case, the solicitor who drafted and published the circular, could be attributed to the principals (the defendants) and thus destroy the defence of privilege. The court also considered the defence of justification, which alleged the truth of the defamatory statements.

A majority of the Full Court, comprising Knox C.J. and Isaacs J., allowed the appeal. They held that all defendants were legally responsible for the publication of the circular. While acknowledging the occasion was privileged, they found that the solicitor who prepared and published the circular, and the defendant Bloch who instructed its publication, possessed knowledge of the untruth of certain defamatory statements within it. This knowledge was deemed to constitute malice, which, in turn, defeated the privilege claimed by all the defendants. Isaacs J. also made observations regarding the duty of an appellate court in cases with no disputed evidentiary facts, and the meaning of "publication" and the defence of justification.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the trial judge in favour of the defendants was set aside.