WALSH V. JAMES 15/1937

WALSH V. JAMES 15/1937

The words spoken by the defendant were capable of bearing, and did bear, a defamatory meaning accusing the plaintiff of perjury. The occasion was not privileged, and even if it was, it was vitiated by actual malice. The plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Walsh; Defendant: F.A. James
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 1938
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Slander, Qualified Privilege, Damages
Defamation Slander Qualified Privilege Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Walsh

Plaintiff

F.A. James

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words spoken by the defendant are capable of a defamatory meaning implying the commission of perjury
  2. 2 Whether the occasion was privileged
  3. 3 Assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The words spoken by the defendant were capable of bearing, and did bear, a defamatory meaning accusing the plaintiff of perjury. The occasion was not privileged, and even if it was, it was vitiated by actual malice. The plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded £50 in damages and the costs of the action, including costs of the shorthand notes