Herald and Weekly Times Limited v McGregor [1928] HCA 36

Herald and Weekly Times Limited v McGregor [1928] HCA 36

The direction to the jury on the innuendo was adequate; there was a divergence as to the damages direction, with the majority holding the instruction was not substantially wrong. The jury's award stands because even if the direction erred in distinguishing compensatory and exemplary damages vis-à-vis the plea of justification, no substantial miscarriage or wrong occurred warranting a new trial; the appeal was thus dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Herald and Weekly Times Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: John Nicol McGregor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 1928
Procedural Posture
Appeal (libel/defamation) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Libel, Plea of Justification, Innuendo, Assessment of Damages, New Trial, Penal/exemplary Damages
Defamation Torts Damages Libel Plea of Justification Innuendo Assessment of Damages New Trial +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Herald and Weekly Times Limited

Appellant/defendant

John Nicol McGregor

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (libel/defamation) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words published were capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo alleged
  2. 2 Whether the jury was improperly directed on the assessment of damages, specifically regarding consideration of a failed plea of justification
  3. 3 Whether errors in the jury direction warranted a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

The direction to the jury on the innuendo was adequate; there was a divergence as to the damages direction, with the majority holding the instruction was not substantially wrong. The jury's award stands because even if the direction erred in distinguishing compensatory and exemplary damages vis-à-vis the plea of justification, no substantial miscarriage or wrong occurred warranting a new trial; the appeal was thus dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs