Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine Brown v Mundine [2011] NSWCA 126

Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine Brown v Mundine [2011] NSWCA 126

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged conclusions were findings of fact and evaluation that were not patently or obviously wrong, did not demonstrate obvious injustice, and did not raise a question of principle requiring determination by the Court. The primary judge was entitled to find that the defendants had not proved that readers capable of identifying the first respondent were limited to the small group identified in their submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings; Applications for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Applications for Leave to Appeal From Mundine V Brown (no 6) [2010] NSWSC 1285
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege' 'identification by Extrinsic Facts' 'quantification of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['qualified Privilege' 'identification by Extrinsic Facts' 'quantification of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings; Applications for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Applications for Leave to Appeal From Mundine V Brown (no 6) [2010] NSWSC 1285

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the amount in issue was considerably below the threshold for an appeal as of right.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in dealing with the argument that the first respondent was not named in the article and that publication was only to readers who knew extrinsic facts identifying her.' "Whether the primary judge's findings on qualified privilege and damages were plainly wrong, involved obvious injustice, or raised a significant issue of principle in the public interest."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged conclusions were findings of fact and evaluation that were not patently or obviously wrong, did not demonstrate obvious injustice, and did not raise a question of principle requiring determination by the Court. The primary judge was entitled to find that the defendants had not proved that readers capable of identifying the first respondent were limited to the small group identified in their submissions.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In each application: Dismiss the application for leave to appeal.' "In each application: Order the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]