Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69

Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69

The loss of the McDonald's contract was caused by a newspaper article reporting on the forged letter; this publication was not the natural and probable result of the respondent's conduct in sending the bogus letter only to a small group, nor was it foreseeable or intended. Further, no sufficient causal link between the respondent's act and the loss was established. The requirements of causation and actual damage in the tort of injurious falsehood were not satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Limited; Respondent: Keith Parsons
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia – From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Causation, Malice, Remoteness of Damage, Elements of Tort, Actual Damage, Publication of False Statements
Torts Injurious Falsehood Causation Malice Remoteness of Damage Elements of Tort Actual Damage Publication of False Statements

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Limited

Appellant

Keith Parsons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia – From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss suffered by the appellant was caused by the initial publication of a forged letter by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the loss was a natural and probable consequence of the respondent's conduct
  3. 3 What is the proper test for causation in injurious falsehood – intention to injure, natural and probable consequence, or reasonable foreseeability

Ratio Decidendi

The loss of the McDonald's contract was caused by a newspaper article reporting on the forged letter; this publication was not the natural and probable result of the respondent's conduct in sending the bogus letter only to a small group, nor was it foreseeable or intended. Further, no sufficient causal link between the respondent's act and the loss was established. The requirements of causation and actual damage in the tort of injurious falsehood were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.