NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD v AITKEN [2004] NSWCA 311

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD v AITKEN [2004] NSWCA 311

The application was refused because the jury had been clearly directed that its answers must be unanimous, making it highly unlikely that the answers were not unanimous; the alleged inconsistency between answers was not established; the trial judge acted within discretion in refusing to question the foreperson; counsel's address did not cross the line of propriety or legitimate insinuation; and the judge gave clear corrective directions that truth, falsity and publisher intention were irrelevant to the jury's task.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a S7 a Jury Decision and From the Trial Judge's Refusal to Discharge the Jury
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['s7 a Jury Trial' 'defamatory Imputations' 'jury Unanimity' 'discharge of Jury' 'counsel Address to Jury' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['s7 a Jury Trial' 'defamatory Imputations' 'jury Unanimity' 'discharge of Jury' 'counsel Address to Jury' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a S7 a Jury Decision and From the Trial Judge's Refusal to Discharge the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge should have questioned the foreperson to determine whether the jury's answers were unanimous." "Whether the jury's answers were unsafe because of a risk that the jury failed to understand its task." "Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury after the plaintiff's counsel's address on the basis that the jury was allegedly misled about the claimant's intention and the truth or falsity of assertions in the article."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the jury had been clearly directed that its answers must be unanimous, making it highly unlikely that the answers were not unanimous; the alleged inconsistency between answers was not established; the trial judge acted within discretion in refusing to question the foreperson; counsel's address did not cross the line of propriety or legitimate insinuation; and the judge gave clear corrective directions that truth, falsity and publisher intention were irrelevant to the jury's task.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application refused with costs.']