Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Clarke

[2013] NSWCA 272

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Slander
3. › Publication
4. › Proof of words spoken
5. › Whether words proved need be identical to words pleaded
6. › Sufficiency of proof of substance and effect of words alleged
7. › Whether defendant's admissions in cross-examination constituted sufficient acceptance of material and defamatory part of words complained of
8. › Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Whether factual conclusions 'glaringly improbable' or 'contrary to compelling inferences'
6. › Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
1. Damages
2. › Defamation
3. › Compensatory and aggravated damages
4. › Quantum
5. › Whether leave to appeal should be granted where no issue of principle identified

Quick Take

In slander cases, a defendant's admissions in cross-examination may constitute sufficient proof of a material and defamatory part of the words pleaded, even where the defendant denies the specific words alleged. The Tournier principle permits proof of words substantially the same as those pleaded, or of a material and defamatory part of them. Where such admissions are made, the plaintiff's case may be substantially established by the defendant's own evidence, making it unnecessary to resolve credibility disputes between the parties' witnesses.