Triggell v Pheeney [1951] HCA 23

Peel. (G7) a wenrk, 348. Coxe. 117. eah tS ape\ Rl Meee Py

cons FF ALR 2S2

$2 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 4¢

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

TRIGGELL S : : : 5 5 . APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND PHEENEY 5 : : 5 s . ResponpENt. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Defamation —Libel—Innuendo—Publication—Qualified. privilege—Malice—Conduct H.C, or A.

at trial—Dishonesty of plaintiff—Belief of defendant—Damages—Kacessive— 1951. Changing value of money—Death of appellant after appeal instituted. "Nas SypNey,

In assessing damages for defamation the jury may not take into account 4,413 45 as a ground for giving or increasing damages, whether exemplary or com- yyqy 19,

pensatory, conduct of the defendant which was bona fide and justifiable or

Dixon, McTiernan,

is bona fide and raised properly or justifiably in the circumstances known Sat ee

proper and therefore the jury cannot use for such a purpose a defence which

to the defendant or evidence honestly given in support of such a defence. But the conduct of the defendant up to and including the trial may be taken into consideration not merely as evidence tending to show retrospectively malice at the time of publication or the intent with which the wrong was done. It may also be taken into consideration as improperly aggravating the injury done to the plaintiff if there is a lack of bona fides in the defendant's conduct or it is improper or unjustifiable. So Held (McTiernan J. dissenting) on the authority of Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. v. McGregor, (1928) 41 CLR. 254.

'A new trial should not be granted in an action of defamation on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff are excessive unless the amount is such that no reasonable body of men could have awarded it,

H. C. or A. 1951. ee

TRiG@ELy, v Puenney.

HIGH COURT (1951.