JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED v LUKIN LUKIN v JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED [1988] NSWCA 74

JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED v LUKIN LUKIN v JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED [1988] NSWCA 74

Imputations (d) (that the plaintiff was implicated in the murder of John Loller) and (g) (that the plaintiff is no longer worthy to represent Australia due to (a), (b), and (d)) are not capable of being conveyed by the article to the ordinary reasonable reader; therefore, they should not go to the jury. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Defendant: John Fairfax & Sons Limited; Defendant: Louisa Costa; Plaintiff: Lukin; Other: David Lukin; Defendant: Third Defendant; Defendant: Fourth Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate (leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders)
Outcome
Defendants' application for leave to appeal allowed. Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Separate Trial of Imputations, Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders, Questions Capable of Going to Jury, Supreme Court Rules (nsw) Pt31 R 2, Pt1 R12, Pt51 R4(2)
Defamation Practice and Procedure Separate Trial of Imputations Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Questions Capable of Going to Jury Supreme Court Rules (nsw) Pt31 R 2, Pt1 R12, Pt51 R4(2)

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Fairfax & Sons Limited

Defendant

Louisa Costa

Defendant

Lukin

Plaintiff

David Lukin

Other

Third Defendant

Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate (leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particular imputations in a defamation case are capable of being put to a jury
  2. 2 Principles governing the grant of leave to appeal in interlocutory defamation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (d) (that the plaintiff was implicated in the murder of John Loller) and (g) (that the plaintiff is no longer worthy to represent Australia due to (a), (b), and (d)) are not capable of being conveyed by the article to the ordinary reasonable reader; therefore, they should not go to the jury. The plaintiff's application to restore imputations (a), (b), and (c) should be refused for the reasons provided by Hunt J. Leave to appeal is granted to the defendants and refused to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for leave to appeal allowed. Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal in CA 45 of 1988 (plaintiff's application) dismissed and leave to appeal refused; claimant to pay all six opponents' costs of the summons.
  • To the extent necessary, the appeal filed in the same matter is dismissed with no order for costs.