New South Wales Country Press Co-operative Co Ltd v Stewart [1911] HCA 12

New South Wales Country Press Co-operative Co Ltd v Stewart [1911] HCA 12

There was no evidence upon which the jury could properly find that the uttering of the slanders complained of was within the scope of Dunn's authority and employment or that they were uttered in the course of his employment in any relevant sense; the company could not be held liable for his statements as they arose outside his special, limited authority and after his employment was terminated.

Parties
Defendant; Appellant: South Wales Country Press Co-operative Co. Ltd.; Plaintiff; Respondent: Jorge Andrew Stewart
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; rule absolute for nonsuit
Legal Topics
Defamation–slander, Principal and Agent Liability, Scope of Employment, Admissibility of Evidence
Tort Agency Law Defamation–slander Principal and Agent Liability Scope of Employment Admissibility of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Wales Country Press Co-operative Co. Ltd.

Defendant; Appellant

Jorge Andrew Stewart

Plaintiff; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant company was liable for slanderous statements uttered by Dunn as agent/former employee
  2. 2 Whether the slanders were within the scope of Dunn’s employment or agency for the defendant
  3. 3 Whether evidence of admissions and statements by the defendant's manager was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence upon which the jury could properly find that the uttering of the slanders complained of was within the scope of Dunn's authority and employment or that they were uttered in the course of his employment in any relevant sense; the company could not be held liable for his statements as they arose outside his special, limited authority and after his employment was terminated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; rule absolute for nonsuit

Orders

  • Judgment for defendants (appellants); plaintiff nonsuited