Chel v Fairfax Media Publications (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 230

Chel v Fairfax Media Publications (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 230

Section 26 of the Defamation Act does not require a contextual imputation to be defamatory. Defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff and found to be substantially true may be considered as contextual imputations under s 26(b). The jury should decide if remaining defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation because of the truth of all contextual imputations collectively, without considering evidence of the plaintiff’s prior reputation, as that is reserved for the judge in assessing damages.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lili Chel; First Defendant: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Vanda Carson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Procedural and Other Rulings During Trial
Outcome
Defendants' defence of contextual truth rejected by the jury after further deliberation; proceedings stood over for submissions on damages.
Legal Topics
Contextual Truth Defence, Substantial Truth, Defamatory Imputations, Jury Directions, Section 26 Defamation Act, Harm to Reputation
Defamation Contextual Truth Defence Substantial Truth Defamatory Imputations Jury Directions Section 26 Defamation Act Harm to Reputation

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lili Chel

Plaintiff

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Vanda Carson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Procedural and Other Rulings During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contextual imputation must be defamatory for the purposes of s 26 of the Defamation Act
  2. 2 Whether an imputation pleaded by the plaintiff and found to be defamatory and substantially true can be deployed by the plaintiff, by the defendant, or disregarded in applying s 26
  3. 3 Whether the effect of all defamatory imputations on reputation should be considered along with facts surrounding all contextual imputations

Ratio Decidendi

Section 26 of the Defamation Act does not require a contextual imputation to be defamatory. Defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff and found to be substantially true may be considered as contextual imputations under s 26(b). The jury should decide if remaining defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation because of the truth of all contextual imputations collectively, without considering evidence of the plaintiff’s prior reputation, as that is reserved for the judge in assessing damages.

Court Disposition

Defendants' defence of contextual truth rejected by the jury after further deliberation; proceedings stood over for submissions on damages.

Orders

  • Jury directed to answer question in the form of Annexure A concerning whether certain defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation due to the substantial truth of contextual imputations.