Ainsworth v. Burden [2006] NSWCA 199

Ainsworth v. Burden [2006] NSWCA 199

It was open to the jury on the evidence to find that the publication of the letter was in circumstances where an enquiry was already underway and the matters that caused actual concern arose independently of the letter, so that it was not likely to cause harm to the appellant; thus, the jury's finding was not so unreasonable that it must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Leonard Hastings Ainsworth; Respondent: Leslie James Burden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Jury Verdict in Supreme Court Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Harm, Jury Verdicts, Defence Under S.13 Defamation Act 1974
Defamation Likelihood of Harm Jury Verdicts Defence Under S.13 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Hastings Ainsworth

Appellant

Leslie James Burden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Jury Verdict in Supreme Court Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's finding that the publication was made in circumstances such that the plaintiff was unlikely to suffer harm was unreasonable under s.13 of the Defamation Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury on the evidence to find that the publication of the letter was in circumstances where an enquiry was already underway and the matters that caused actual concern arose independently of the letter, so that it was not likely to cause harm to the appellant; thus, the jury's finding was not so unreasonable that it must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed, with each party to bear its own costs to the extent that the overall costs of the appeal and cross-appeal have been increased by the bringing of the cross-appeal.