Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50

Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50

All defendants were legally responsible for the publication of the circular, which was defamatory of the plaintiff. Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege, malice was demonstrated in that certain defendants published statements they knew to be untrue or failed to ascertain the truth. The malice of Bloch and Norman destroyed the privilege for all defendants. The defence of justification failed as the statements were unfair distortions.

Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Henry Webb; Defendant: Mark Bloch; Defendant: Joseph Cleveland Pratt; Defendant: F. V. Murphy; Defendant: H. S. Crocker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 1928
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Starke J., Judgment of Trial Judge Overturned
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Justification
Torts Defamation Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Justification

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Henry Webb

Plaintiff

Mark Bloch

Defendant

Joseph Cleveland Pratt

Defendant

F. V. Murphy

Defendant

H. S. Crocker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Starke J., Judgment of Trial Judge Overturned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of a defamatory circular was protected by qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether malice defeated that privilege for all defendants
  3. 3 Whether the statements made were justified as true

Ratio Decidendi

All defendants were legally responsible for the publication of the circular, which was defamatory of the plaintiff. Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege, malice was demonstrated in that certain defendants published statements they knew to be untrue or failed to ascertain the truth. The malice of Bloch and Norman destroyed the privilege for all defendants. The defence of justification failed as the statements were unfair distortions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants set aside
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for £500 damages with costs of the action (including additional costs incurred by trial in Melbourne instead of Adelaide) and of this appeal