Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor - [2018] HCATrans 238

[2018] HCATrans 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M103 of 2018

B e t w e e n -
REBEL MELANIE ELIZABETH WILSON
Applicant
and
BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD (ACN 053 273 546)
First Respondent
BAUER MEDIA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 160 041 681)
Second Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

BELL J
KEANE J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2018, AT 9.30 AM

MR M.J. COLLINS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS R.L. ENBOM, for the applicant. (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers)

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR S. MUKERJEA for the respondents. (instructed by Johnson Winter & Slattery)

BELL J: Yes, Mr Collins.

MR COLLINS: Your Honours, there are two special leave points, in our submission. First, this case, in our contention, involved a glaring departure from the Court of Appeal from the principles relating to appellate restraint in the review of factual findings which have been repeatedly emphasised by this Court in the line of authorities that includes Warren v Coombes and Fox v Percy.

To put it crisply, in our submission, the Court of Appeal sidestepped the guidance which has been given by the Court in relation to appellate restraint. It did so by characterising the findings it was reviewing as being the result of purely inferential reasoning and then, having done so, considered itself freed from any further appellate restraint in respect of all other facts found by the trial judge.

In our submission, on a reading of the judgment what then happened is the Court of Appeal went on to review and reverse a host of relevant factual findings even where they would not have failed the test in Fox v Percy because, for example, they were uncontested at trial. In some respects, even the subject of agreement in a summary of agreed facts that was put before the Court, in many respects, dependent upon direct evidence from witnesses whose testimony was accepted by the primary judge ‑ ‑ ‑

BELL J: Can I just pull you up there if I may, Mr Collins? When you say that in some instances the inferences were based on evidence accepted by the primary judge given by witnesses for the applicant, is that a reference to the evidence of Ms Jackson and Mr Principato?

MR COLLINS: More than that. It is the evidence of Ms Jackson, Mr Principato, the plaintiff herself ‑ ‑ ‑

BELL J: Yes.

MR COLLINS: ‑ ‑ ‑ one of the respondent’s witnesses, a Ms Overington, Mr Hugh Sheridan.

BELL J: Just looking at the evidence of Mr Principato and Ms Jackson, as I read their Honours’ reasons, there was no issue of not accepting his Honour’s estimate that both were honest witnesses. Rather the Court of Appeal concluded that their…

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 Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2018] HCATrans 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a defamation claim brought by Ms. Wilson against Bauer Media Pty Ltd and another party. Ms. Wilson alleged that Bauer Media had defamed her through a series of articles published in its magazines, which she contended conveyed imputations that she had lied about her cancer diagnosis and had used it to advance her career. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these publications were defamatory and, if so, whether Bauer Media had established a defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the publications conveyed the alleged defamatory imputations, and if so, whether the defence of contextual truth was made out. Specifically, the court considered whether the imputations of lying about a cancer diagnosis and exploiting it for personal gain were substantially true, thereby negating the defamatory sting of the publications. The appeal also concerned the proper application of the defence of contextual truth in defamation law.

The High Court found that the publications did not convey the imputations that Ms. Wilson had lied about her cancer diagnosis or had used it to advance her career. Instead, the court held that the articles conveyed imputations that Ms. Wilson had exaggerated her condition and had sought to profit from her illness, but these imputations were substantially true. Applying the defence of contextual truth, the court concluded that because the imputations of exaggeration and profit-seeking were substantially true, they justified the publications and removed the sting from any other potentially defamatory meanings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders