JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LTD v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1988] NSWCA 75

JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LTD v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1988] NSWCA 75

The remarks made by Herron DCJ did not constitute an order under s578 or s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 or otherwise; there was no statutory or inherent jurisdiction to make such an order on these facts. The ambiguous remarks warranted a declaration for legal clarity but not prerogative relief.

Parties
Claimant: John Fairfax & Sons Ltd; First Opponent: District Court of New South Wales; Second Opponent: Attorney General; Third Opponent: Third Opponent (not named)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief and Declaration / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted; no prerogative relief; limited costs order
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication Orders, Standing of Newspapers, Interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 S578 a, Declaratory Relief, Open Justice
Criminal Law Evidence Practice and Procedure Media Law Suppression Orders Non Publication Orders Standing of Newspapers Interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 S578 a +2 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd

Claimant

District Court of New South Wales

First Opponent

Attorney General

Second Opponent

Third Opponent (not named)

Third Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Relief and Declaration / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court judge's remarks constituted an order under s578 or s578A Crimes Act 1900
  2. 2 Whether such an order would be authorised by statute or at common law
  3. 3 Whether declaratory relief should be granted to clarify legal status of judicial remarks

Ratio Decidendi

The remarks made by Herron DCJ did not constitute an order under s578 or s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 or otherwise; there was no statutory or inherent jurisdiction to make such an order on these facts. The ambiguous remarks warranted a declaration for legal clarity but not prerogative relief.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; no prerogative relief; limited costs order

Orders

  • Declare that what Judge Herron said on 8 August 1988 was not, and did not purport to be, an order under s578 or s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 or otherwise.
  • Order that the Claimant pay the Third Opponent's costs as a submitting party.