Whelan v John Fairfax Publications & 2 Ors [2000] NSWCA 48

Whelan v John Fairfax Publications & 2 Ors [2000] NSWCA 48

The appeal failed because the matters complained of did not suggest that Mr Whelan was being investigated or that he was involved in any misuse of his position; the investigation referred to was of the police, not of the plaintiff, and the pleaded imputations were therefore not reasonably capable of arising.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Appeal From a Supreme Court Common Law Division Determination Under S 7 A(1) of the Defamation Act 1974 That the Matters Complained of Were Not Reasonably Capable of Carrying the Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; liberty granted to replead; orders or verdict of the court below set aside insofar as inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's orders.
Legal Topics
['reasonably Capable Imputations' 'misuse of Power' 'preferential Treatment' 'police Minister' 'liberty to Replead']
['defamation'] ['reasonably Capable Imputations' 'misuse of Power' 'preferential Treatment' 'police Minister' 'liberty to Replead']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Appeal From a Supreme Court Common Law Division Determination Under S 7 A(1) of the Defamation Act 1974 That the Matters Complained of Were Not Reasonably Capable of Carrying the Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters complained of were reasonably capable of carrying imputations that Mr Whelan mis-used his position as Minister of Police' "Whether references to an investigation of the police and to the 'Whelan Hotel' defamed Mr Whelan personally"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the matters complained of did not suggest that Mr Whelan was being investigated or that he was involved in any misuse of his position; the investigation referred to was of the police, not of the plaintiff, and the pleaded imputations were therefore not reasonably capable of arising.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; liberty granted to replead; orders or verdict of the court below set aside insofar as inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's orders.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Set aside the orders of the court below.' 'Grant of liberty to replead.' 'The appellant may file a further amended statement of claim containing further imputations within fourteen days.' "Set aside his Honour's verdict insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the orders made by the...