STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v DEREN & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 22

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v DEREN & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 22

The trial judge erred in not leaving the contextual imputation defences to the jury in both cases. In Mr Deren's case, the evidence for the contextual imputation was sufficient and should have been left to the jury; in Mrs Deren's case, Powell JA and Priestley JA found the contextual imputation available and sufficiently evidenced to be a question for the jury, while Stein JA dissented, finding no sufficient evidence. The defence of qualified privilege failed in both cases.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against judgment for Mr Deren allowed, new trial ordered; By majority, appeal against judgment for Mrs Deren dismissed.
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'contextual Imputation Defence' 'qualified Privilege' 'truth Defence']
['torts' 'defamation'] ['defamation' 'contextual Imputation Defence' 'qualified Privilege' 'truth Defence']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence relevant to justification and contextual imputation defences' 'Whether certain words in the imputation should have been struck out as surplusage' 'Whether contextual imputations were capable of arising from the publications and should have been left to the jury' 'Whether the defences of truth and qualified privilege were established']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in not leaving the contextual imputation defences to the jury in both cases. In Mr Deren's case, the evidence for the contextual imputation was sufficient and should have been left to the jury; in Mrs Deren's case, Powell JA and Priestley JA found the contextual imputation available and sufficiently evidenced to be a question for the jury, while Stein JA dissented, finding no sufficient evidence. The defence of qualified privilege failed in both cases.

Court Disposition

Appeal against judgment for Mr Deren allowed, new trial ordered; By majority, appeal against judgment for Mrs Deren dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against the verdict and judgment in favour of the first respondent dismissed.' 'The appeal against the verdict and judgment in favour of the second respondent upheld, and the verdict and judgment set aside.' "A new trial, other than on the issue of qualified privilege, of the second respondent's claims...