Norton v Clarke [1911] HCA 4

Norton v Clarke [1911] HCA 4

The particular alleging that Canon Nash was not guilty of any charges and that the plaintiff was aware of such fact was properly struck out; the defendant was not entitled to ask for more than allowed by the order of Cussen J.

Parties
Defendant: Norton; Plaintiff: Clarke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 1911
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment, Justification, Particulars
Defamation Libel Fair Comment Justification Particulars

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 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norton

Defendant

Clarke

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particular alleging plaintiff's knowledge of Canon Nash's innocence is properly pleaded in support of fair comment
  2. 2 Entitlement to prove innocence of Canon Nash and plaintiff's knowledge in defence

Ratio Decidendi

The particular alleging that Canon Nash was not guilty of any charges and that the plaintiff was aware of such fact was properly struck out; the defendant was not entitled to ask for more than allowed by the order of Cussen J.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused