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

[2008] NSWCA 1

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Identification of plaintiff
3. › Corporate plaintiff
4. › Identification by business name rather than corporate name
5. › Whether corporate plaintiff must prove publication to person who knew its corporate name
6. › Whether reference to business name in matter complained of sufficient identification
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Identification of plaintiff
3. › Evidence of identification
4. › Whether direct evidence of identification essential
5. › Whether jury may infer identification from circumstantial evidence
6. › Sufficiency of evidence to go to jury
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Trial by jury
3. › Directed verdict
4. › Whether primary judge erred in directing jury to answer identification question in the negative
5. › Whether there was evidence upon which jury could reasonably find for plaintiff
6. › Substantial miscarriage of justice
7. › New trial ordered
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.53

Quick Take

A corporate plaintiff in defamation that trades under a business name different from its corporate name need not prove that the matter complained of was published to a person who knew its corporate name. Identification by business name is sufficient, and the jury may infer identification from evidence that readers linked the business name in the publication to the plaintiff's business. The Parras 'David Jones' example is not confined to businesses of equivalent notoriety.