Universal Communication Network Inc trading as New Tang Dynasty v Chinese Media Group (Aust) Pty Ltd and Chan [2008] NSWCA 1

Universal Communication Network Inc trading as New Tang Dynasty v Chinese Media Group (Aust) Pty Ltd and Chan [2008] NSWCA 1

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the primary judge erred in ruling that there was no evidence fit to go to the jury on the question of the appellant’s identification. The evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the appellant was identified by reference to its business name in the matter complained of, without needing to prove identification by the corporate name. Consequently, it was erroneous to direct the jury to answer the identification question in the negative, amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court (common Law Division), Appeal Allowed and New Trial Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['identification of Plaintiff in Defamation' 'corporate Plaintiff' 's 7 a Defamation Act Trial' 'evidentiary Requirements for Identification' 'pleading in Defamation' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['defamation'] ['identification of Plaintiff in Defamation' 'corporate Plaintiff' 's 7 a Defamation Act Trial' 'evidentiary Requirements for Identification' 'pleading in Defamation' '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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court (common Law Division), Appeal Allowed and New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Was there evidence fit to go to the jury that the appellant was identified in the defamatory matter as the corporation trading as 'New Tang Dynasty'?" 'Did the primary judge err in requiring proof of identification by corporate name instead of business name?' 'Was it an error not to allow the appellant to put its case on the basis of identification by business name?']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the primary judge erred in ruling that there was no evidence fit to go to the jury on the question of the appellant’s identification. The evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the appellant was identified by reference to its business name in the matter complained of, without needing to prove identification by the corporate name. Consequently, it was erroneous to direct the jury to answer the identification question in the negative, amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the judgment entered in favour of the respondents by Studdert J on 5 April 2006.' 'Order that there be a new trial on all issues as between the appellant and the respondents.' 'Respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.' 'Costs of the first trial as between the appellant and the...