Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, AND HEYDON JJ

PAUL JOSEPH FAVELL & ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD & ANOR

RESPONDENTS

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

[2005] HCA 52

27 September 2005

B19/2005

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs.

2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 30 April 2004 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs, the orders of Helman J made on 31 October 2003 be set aside, and that the application of the respondents be remitted to a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland for further consideration in accordance with the reasons of this Court.

3. The costs of the proceedings before Helman J be left for the decision of the judge dealing with the amended application.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation:

G O'L Reynolds SC with R J Anderson and J C Hewitt for the appellants (instructed by Gail Malone & Associates)

R A Mulholland QC with D C Spence for the respondents (instructed by Thynne & Macartney)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd

Defamation – Pleading and practice – Application for summary judgment or alternatively to strike out part of a pleading – Test to be applied – Whether matter published capable of conveying defamatory imputations.

Words and phrases – "defamatory meaning".

1. GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND HEYDON JJ. The issue in this appeal is whether a newspaper article, published by the first respondent and written by the second respondent, was capable of bearing certain defamatory meanings. The article was published in The Sunday Mail, a newspaper with a wide circulation mainly in Queensland, on Sunday 19 January 2003. It was in the following terms: