DEMPSTER v COATES [1990] NSWCA 52

DEMPSTER v COATES [1990] NSWCA 52

The jury's answers to special questions were inconsistent, which was not resolved by the trial judge; a new trial is therefore required. Damages awarded for defamation to single individuals were excessive, and no error was found in refusing an adjournment.

Parties
Appellant: Dempster; Respondent: Coates
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; judgment and costs order set aside
Legal Topics
Defamation Damages, Inconsistent Jury Verdicts, Adjournment of Trial, Costs Orders, Jury Trial Procedure
Defamation Civil Procedure Defamation Damages Inconsistent Jury Verdicts Adjournment of Trial Costs Orders Jury Trial Procedure

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dempster

Appellant

Coates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's answers were inconsistent requiring a new trial
  2. 2 Whether damages awarded for single-person publication were excessive
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's answers to special questions were inconsistent, which was not resolved by the trial judge; a new trial is therefore required. Damages awarded for defamation to single individuals were excessive, and no error was found in refusing an adjournment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered; judgment and costs order set aside

Orders

  • The judgment and costs order entered on 28 March 1988 be set aside.
  • There be a new trial of the action.