Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 107

Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 107

Because the plaintiff relied only on alleged false or egregiously erroneous reporting to defeat the fair report defence, any acceptance of those matters would cause the s 29(1) fair report defence to fail before s 29(3) arose. There was no legally available chain of reasoning by which a jury could find the article was a fair report yet infer from those same alleged errors that it was not published honestly for the information of the public or the advancement of education.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Application to Take an Issue From the Jury
Outcome
Issue withdrawn from the jury.
Legal Topics
['fair Report Defence' 'proceedings of Public Concern' 'publication Honestly for the Information of the Public or Advancement of Education' 'withdrawal of Issue From Jury']
['defamation Law'] ['fair Report Defence' 'proceedings of Public Concern' 'publication Honestly for the Information of the Public or Advancement of Education' 'withdrawal of Issue From Jury']

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Application to Take an Issue From the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the issue raised by paragraph 2 of the plaintiff's Reply under s 29(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 should be withdrawn from the jury." 'Whether alleged falsities or egregious errors in the article could support an inference that the defamatory matter was not published honestly for the information of the public or the advancement of education while still allowing the article to be a fair report.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff relied only on alleged false or egregiously erroneous reporting to defeat the fair report defence, any acceptance of those matters would cause the s 29(1) fair report defence to fail before s 29(3) arose. There was no legally available chain of reasoning by which a jury could find the article was a fair report yet infer from those same alleged errors that it was not published honestly for the information of the public or the advancement of education.

Court Disposition

Issue withdrawn from the jury.

Orders

  • ['A question concerning s 29(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 will not be posed to the jury.']