Godhard v James Inglis and Co Ltd [1904] HCA 37

Godhard v James Inglis and Co Ltd [1904] HCA 37

It is immaterial whether the defendant had the individuality of the plaintiff in mind when publishing defamatory matter if the words used are capable of identifying the plaintiff as a member of the class attacked; since the trial judge instructed the jury that it was necessary for the defendant to have the plaintiff individually in mind, this constituted misdirection and a new trial must be ordered.

Parties
Plaintiff: GODHARD; Defendant: JAMES INGLIS & Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Judgment of High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial granted
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamation of Class, Misdirection, New Trial
Torts Defamation Libel Defamation of Class Misdirection New Trial

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GODHARD

Plaintiff

JAMES INGLIS & Co. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Judgment of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action for libel lies where defamatory words are published concerning a class of persons, and the plaintiff is a member of that class unknown to the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether it was necessary for the defendant to have the plaintiff individually in mind for liability to attach.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge gave an erroneous direction to the jury.

Ratio Decidendi

It is immaterial whether the defendant had the individuality of the plaintiff in mind when publishing defamatory matter if the words used are capable of identifying the plaintiff as a member of the class attacked; since the trial judge instructed the jury that it was necessary for the defendant to have the plaintiff individually in mind, this constituted misdirection and a new trial must be ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial granted

Orders

  • Rule absolute for a new trial with costs.
  • Costs of the first trial to abide the event.