Hall v Swan & Anor [2009] NSWCA 371

Hall v Swan & Anor [2009] NSWCA 371

No reasonable jury properly instructed could have found, on the evidence, that the majority of the pleaded imputations (except (h) and (j)) were not conveyed by the broadcasts, nor that such imputations were not defamatory; the trial miscarried in part due to public interest submissions and directions which could have misled and confused the jury; the appellate court was justified in substituting verdicts that the specified imputations ((a)-(g), (i), (k), (l)) were conveyed and were defamatory, and dismissing the appeal only as to (h) and (j).

Parties
Appellant: Bruce Hall; First Respondent: Norman Swan; Second Respondent: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Jury Verdict (defamation, S 7 a Trial) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; substituted verdicts entered for specific imputations; appeal otherwise dismissed; costs awarded to the appellant.
Legal Topics
Jury Verdicts, Imputations, Reasonableness of Verdicts, Directions to Jury, Public Interest Submissions, Defamatory Meaning, S 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Procedures, Relief Under S 108(3) Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)
Defamation Jury Verdicts Imputations Reasonableness of Verdicts Directions to Jury Public Interest Submissions Defamatory Meaning S 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Procedures +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Hall

Appellant

Norman Swan

First Respondent

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Jury Verdict (defamation, S 7 a Trial) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdicts that none of the pleaded imputations were conveyed were unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether submissions regarding the 'public interest' misled the jury or caused a miscarriage of the trial
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should substitute its own verdicts or order a new trial where the jury did not consider whether the imputations were defamatory

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonable jury properly instructed could have found, on the evidence, that the majority of the pleaded imputations (except (h) and (j)) were not conveyed by the broadcasts, nor that such imputations were not defamatory; the trial miscarried in part due to public interest submissions and directions which could have misled and confused the jury; the appellate court was justified in substituting verdicts that the specified imputations ((a)-(g), (i), (k), (l)) were conveyed and were defamatory, and dismissing the appeal only as to (h) and (j).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; substituted verdicts entered for specific imputations; appeal otherwise dismissed; costs awarded to the appellant.

Orders

  • Set aside the orders of Rothman J made on 10 February 2009.
  • Order that verdicts be entered that the broadcasts conveyed each of imputations (a) to (g), (i), (k) and (l) and that each of those imputations is defamatory.