Yoon Shin Lee v Bob Chae-Sang Cha

[2005] NSWCA 279

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Republication of defamatory hearsay
4. › Whether republisher liable without adopting defamatory statement
5. › Adoption in primary and secondary senses
6. › Whether absence of adoption determinative or merely relevant to imputations conveyed
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss 7A, 9
1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Statutory construction of 'makes an imputation'
4. › Whether distinction between publishing and making an imputation available under s 9(2)
5. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 9(1)(b), s 9(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Trial by jury
3. › Discharge of jury
4. › Discharge during counsel's address
5. › Whether counsel's erroneous address to jury entitled trial judge to discharge jury
6. › Whether mischief could be cured by direction
7. › Appellate review of discretion to discharge jury
8. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A

Quick Take

A newspaper publisher who republishes defamatory material (such as an auditor's report) without comment or endorsement is nonetheless liable for any defamatory imputations conveyed by the publication. The absence of 'adoption' or 'endorsement' by the publisher is merely one factor relevant to whether the matter complained of, read as a whole, conveys the imputations alleged — it is not determinative. Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) does not support a distinction between 'publishing' and 'making' an imputation. Counsel addressing a jury in a s 7A hearing must not put the proposition that the publisher is not liable because it did not adopt the defamatory statements; doing so may warrant discharge of the jury.