AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD v PATTON [1990] NSWCA 14

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD v PATTON [1990] NSWCA 14

The matter published was capable of conveying the plaintiff consented to a verdict in her defamation action because she was afraid the defendant could prove she engaged in criminal activity; the contextual imputations pleaded by the appellant are permissible under s16 Defamation Act 1974 and should go to the jury.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Consolidated Press Ltd; Respondent: Patton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal Following Appeals From Two Interlocutory Decisions
Outcome
Appeal from Hunt J dismissed with costs; appeal from Smart J allowed; order of Smart J set aside; contextual imputations may go to the jury; respondent to pay appellant's costs of Smart J proceedings and appeal; certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 granted if entitled.
Legal Topics
Imputations, Contextual Imputations, Capacity of Published Matter, Practice of Separate Trials
Defamation Imputations Contextual Imputations Capacity of Published Matter Practice of Separate Trials

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Consolidated Press Ltd

Appellant

Patton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal Following Appeals From Two Interlocutory Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter published was capable of conveying the defamatory imputation that the plaintiff consented to a verdict for the defendant out of fear that her criminal activity would be established
  2. 2 Whether the contextual imputations pleaded by the defendant could go to the jury under s16 of the Defamation Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The matter published was capable of conveying the plaintiff consented to a verdict in her defamation action because she was afraid the defendant could prove she engaged in criminal activity; the contextual imputations pleaded by the appellant are permissible under s16 Defamation Act 1974 and should go to the jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal from Hunt J dismissed with costs; appeal from Smart J allowed; order of Smart J set aside; contextual imputations may go to the jury; respondent to pay appellant's costs of Smart J proceedings and appeal; certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 granted if entitled.

Orders

  • Appeal from Hunt J dismissed with costs
  • Appeal from Smart J allowed