Guise v Kouvelis [1947] HCA 13

Guise v Kouvelis [1947] HCA 13

By majority, the words complained of were not spoken on a privileged occasion. There was no social or moral duty warranting the public statement. The appeal is allowed, the Full Court's order for a new trial is set aside, and the original judgment for the plaintiff is restored. It was improper for counsel to mention the donation of damages to the Red Cross but no application was made to discharge the jury, and this did not warrant a new trial.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Nickolas Guise; Respondent; Defendant: John Kouvelis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Action for Slander / High Court of Australia Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Slander, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Trial Procedure
Tort Law Defamation Slander Qualified Privilege Damages Trial Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nickolas Guise

Appellant; Plaintiff

John Kouvelis

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Action for Slander / High Court of Australia Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occasion on which the words 'You are a crook' were spoken was one of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdict for damages should be set aside due to statements made to the jury regarding donation of damages to the Red Cross Society

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the words complained of were not spoken on a privileged occasion. There was no social or moral duty warranting the public statement. The appeal is allowed, the Full Court's order for a new trial is set aside, and the original judgment for the plaintiff is restored. It was improper for counsel to mention the donation of damages to the Red Cross but no application was made to discharge the jury, and this did not warrant a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Full Court set aside
  • Judgment for plaintiff restored