Keramianakis v Regional Publishers Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 18

Keramianakis v Regional Publishers Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 18

The orders made by the trial judge following the jury's answers, including the pronouncement of 'verdict' and award of costs, amounted to a 'judgment or order' under s 127(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), thereby granting jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to entertain the appeal. The absence of an express power in other statutes to deal with such appeals does not limit this right. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, ordered a new trial on specific imputations, and set aside the contrary orders below.

Parties
Appellant: Constantine Keramianakis; Respondent: Regional Publishers Pty Ltd; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate (high Court of Australia)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Jury Trials, Defamation, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Procedure Appeals Jury Trials Defamation Interpretation of Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constantine Keramianakis

Appellant

Regional Publishers Pty Ltd

Respondent

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate (high Court of Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the New South Wales Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a District Court judgment following a jury trial in defamation when the trial judge entered a 'verdict' for the defendant after the jury's answers.
  2. 2 Whether the pronouncement of 'verdict' by a trial judge constitutes a 'judgment or order' within the meaning of s 127(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).

Ratio Decidendi

The orders made by the trial judge following the jury's answers, including the pronouncement of 'verdict' and award of costs, amounted to a 'judgment or order' under s 127(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), thereby granting jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to entertain the appeal. The absence of an express power in other statutes to deal with such appeals does not limit this right. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, ordered a new trial on specific imputations, and set aside the contrary orders below.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.