NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD v NORIEGA [2004] NSWCA 420

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD v NORIEGA [2004] NSWCA 420

Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned remarks did not affect or fail to recognise the statutory right of peremptory challenge, and there was no real possibility that the remarks caused injustice or detrimentally affected the jury's attitude to the claimants. The suggested prejudice was far-fetched, especially as counsel immediately told the jury that rugby knowledge did not matter and the case was about what the words meant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decisions in a S7 a Defamation Act 1974 Jury Trial, Limited to Refusal to Discharge the Jury
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'discharge of Jury' 'peremptory Challenges' 'alleged Prejudicial Remarks by Counsel' 'defamatory Imputations Under S7 a of the Defamation Act 1974']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'jury Trial Procedure'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'discharge of Jury' 'peremptory Challenges' 'alleged Prejudicial Remarks by Counsel' 'defamatory Imputations Under S7 a of the Defamation Act 1974']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decisions in a S7 a Defamation Act 1974 Jury Trial, Limited to Refusal to Discharge the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury miscarried because of remarks made by counsel for the opponent about the claimants' peremptory challenges to the jury panel." 'Whether the impugned remarks undermined the right of peremptory challenge under s42A of the Jury Act 1977.' 'Whether there was a real possibility that an injustice occurred so as to justify appellate intervention or a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned remarks did not affect or fail to recognise the statutory right of peremptory challenge, and there was no real possibility that the remarks caused injustice or detrimentally affected the jury's attitude to the claimants. The suggested prejudice was far-fetched, especially as counsel immediately told the jury that rugby knowledge did not matter and the case was about what the words meant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused with costs.']