Aleksandra Gacic & v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited & Anor

(2006) 66 NSWLR 675; [2006] NSWCA 175

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Business defamation
3. › Distinction from general defamation
4. › Imputation injuring person in trade, business or profession
5. › Whether imputation need lower person in estimation of right-thinking members of community
6. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Jury trial under s 7A
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Inadequate directions on defamatory meaning
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury that respondents' counsel's address on general defamation was irrelevant
6. › Whether misdirection occasioned miscarriage of justice
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Capacity
3. › Inference upon an inference
4. › Whether question of capacity for judge or question of fact for jury
5. › Whether absolute rule of law precludes inference upon inference from conveying defamatory imputation
6. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Jury verdict
3. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict one that no reasonable jury properly directed could have reached
5. › Power of appellate court to enter verdict
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 102, 108(3)

Quick Take

In defamation proceedings under s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), the question whether an imputation involves an inference upon an inference is a question of capacity for the judge and should not be left to the jury. Where a case is pleaded exclusively as a business defamation, the trial judge must direct the jury that the only question is whether the imputations tend to injure the plaintiff in their business, and must not leave the general defamation test to the jury. The Court of Appeal may enter a verdict on the defamatory meaning question under s 108(3) of the Supreme Court Act where the imputation is plainly defamatory and no reasonable jury properly directed could reach any other verdict, particularly in business defamation cases where community standards are less important. Ipp JA's view that there is no absolute rule precluding an inference upon an inference from conveying a defamatory imputation, while agreed to by Beazley JA in result, represents a separate analytical path that may influence future development of the doctrine.