Maitland & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 155

Maitland & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 155

The appellants were granted an extension of time and leave to appeal because, despite an unsatisfactory explanation for delay, the respondent suffered no prejudice and the appeal raised genuine issues. The appeal was dismissed because the respondent's construction of the article was reasonably open: the article did not clearly attribute the pleaded obstruction, threats, standover tactics or condoning conduct to the appellants, and the jury's finding that none of the imputations was conveyed was not a finding no reasonable jury could reach. The jury's deliberation period was not so extreme or disproportionate as to suggest bias or failure to apprehend its function.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal From S 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Jury Decision / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the costs of the appeal including the application for an extension of time.
Legal Topics
['whether Defamatory Imputations Were Conveyed' 'appeal From Jury Decision' 'extension of Time for Leave to Appeal' 'jury Deliberation Time']
['defamation' 'practice and Procedure'] ['whether Defamatory Imputations Were Conveyed' 'appeal From Jury Decision' 'extension of Time for Leave to Appeal' 'jury Deliberation Time']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal From S 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Jury Decision / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Heard Concurrently; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for filing the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether each jury answer that the pleaded imputations were not conveyed was an answer no reasonable jury properly directed could have given.' "Whether the jury's answers, considered in the aggregate, demonstrated perversity." "Whether the speed of the jury's verdict supported an inference that the jury misdirected itself or acted perversely."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were granted an extension of time and leave to appeal because, despite an unsatisfactory explanation for delay, the respondent suffered no prejudice and the appeal raised genuine issues. The appeal was dismissed because the respondent's construction of the article was reasonably open: the article did not clearly attribute the pleaded obstruction, threats, standover tactics or condoning conduct to the appellants, and the jury's finding that none of the imputations was conveyed was not a finding no reasonable jury could reach. The jury's deliberation period was not so extreme or disproportionate as to suggest bias or failure to apprehend its function.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the costs of the appeal including the application for an extension of time.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal to 30 April 2003.' 'Grant the appellants leave to appeal upon their undertaking to file in the Registry of the Court within 48 hours a Notice of Appeal in the form of the draft handed to the Court and to pay the filing fee in respect thereof.' 'Dismiss...