Kruse, David v Lindner, Anton [1978] FCA 24
On the evidence, there was no proof that any reasonable person understood the words of the advertisement to refer to the appellant; mere proof of proprietorship of the business named in the advertisement was insufficient. No error was shown in rejecting hearsay evidence or in deciding the issue against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 1978
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment of Appellate Court After Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['defamation' 'libel' 'reference and Identification of Plaintiff' 'hearsay Evidence' 'damages in Defamation' 'evidence Admissibility']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of Appellate Court After Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the advertisement published by the respondent referred to and identified the appellant for the purposes of a defamation action' 'Whether certain hearsay evidence was admissible to prove identification or damages']
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence, there was no proof that any reasonable person understood the words of the advertisement to refer to the appellant; mere proof of proprietorship of the business named in the advertisement was insufficient. No error was shown in rejecting hearsay evidence or in deciding the issue against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment