JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED v FOORD SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [1988] NSWCA 76

JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED v FOORD SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [1988] NSWCA 76

Neither article E nor commentary F was capable of suggesting that there had been a miscarriage of justice when the respondent was acquitted; the imputation was not open based on the published materials.

Parties
Appellant: John Fairfax & Sons Limited; Respondent: Foord
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in respect of imputation 11(c), no change to costs order
Legal Topics
Imputation, Defamatory Meaning, Publication
Defamation Imputation Defamatory Meaning Publication

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Fairfax & Sons Limited

Appellant

Foord

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication supports the imputation that the plaintiff, although acquitted, is in fact guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Neither article E nor commentary F was capable of suggesting that there had been a miscarriage of justice when the respondent was acquitted; the imputation was not open based on the published materials.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in respect of imputation 11(c), no change to costs order

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in respect of imputation 11(c).
  • Appeal allowed in relation to imputation 5 and 19(b).