Mackay v Bacon [1910] HCA 71

Mackay v Bacon [1910] HCA 71

The jury was entitled to find that the first statement was fair comment and the second was for the public benefit. The evidence admitted was proper and the direction given to the jury regarding fair comment was correct.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: James Mackay; Respondent/defendant: Walter W. Bacon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1910
Procedural Posture
Defamation/slander Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Refusal of New Trial
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Slander, Fair Comment, Truth as a Defence, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Torts Slander Fair Comment Truth as a Defence Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Mackay

Appellant/plaintiff

Walter W. Bacon

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation/slander Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Refusal of New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defamatory statements made by the defendant at a public meeting constituted slander
  2. 2 Whether evidence of other speeches and correspondence at the meeting was admissible
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's statements constituted fair comment

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was entitled to find that the first statement was fair comment and the second was for the public benefit. The evidence admitted was proper and the direction given to the jury regarding fair comment was correct.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs