Griffith v John Fairfax Publications [2004] NSWCA 300

Griffith v John Fairfax Publications [2004] NSWCA 300

The Court held that the first matter complained of (the SMH article) was not reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded imputations of 'dangerous cult' or 'pose[s] a threat to the community', agreeing with the primary judge that an ordinary reasonable reader would not understand the article at that heightened level. However, the Court held that the second matter complained of (the CultAware Newsletter) was reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded imputations of 'destructive cult' or 'pose[s] a threat to the community' by reason of the context, the emphasis on destructive groups, and the FHA's association among those listed and discussed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal in...

Parties
Appellant: Jeremy Norman Griffith; Appellant: Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood; Appellant: Timothy John Macartney-Snape; Appellants: 33 members of the FHA; Respondent: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd; Respondent: David Millikan; Respondent: William Anthony McClelland t/as CultAware
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Imputations, Capacity to Convey Meaning, Jury or Judge Question, Section 7 A(1) Defamation Act 1974
Defamation Imputations Capacity to Convey Meaning Jury or Judge Question Section 7 A(1) Defamation Act 1974

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Norman Griffith

Appellant

Foundation for Humanity's Adulthood

Appellant

Timothy John Macartney-Snape

Appellant

33 members of the FHA

Appellants

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

Respondent

David Millikan

Respondent

William Anthony McClelland t/as CultAware

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matters complained of are reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations under s7A(1) Defamation Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in withdrawing certain imputations from the jury
  3. 3 Whether the republication allegation in para 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the first matter complained of (the SMH article) was not reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded imputations of 'dangerous cult' or 'pose[s] a threat to the community', agreeing with the primary judge that an ordinary reasonable reader would not understand the article at that heightened level. However, the Court held that the second matter complained of (the CultAware Newsletter) was reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded imputations of 'destructive cult' or 'pose[s] a threat to the community' by reason of the context, the emphasis on destructive groups, and the FHA's association among those listed and discussed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal in...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Vary Order 1 made by Levine J on 19 February 2004 by deleting the reference to imputation 6(i) and adding references to imputations 12(d), 13(b) and 14(b)
  • Vary Order 2 made by Levine J on 19 February 2004 by adding a reference to imputation 6(i)