JOHN FAIRFAX AND SONS LIMITED v FOORD SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [1988] NSWCA 76

JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LIMITED v FOORD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

Hope, MAHONEY and CLARKE JJA 2, 3 March 1988; 17, 27 May 1988

[1988] NSWCA 76

Hope, Mahoney and Clarke JJA Specific consideration and a ruling on imputation11(c) were omitted from the earlier reasons although in the context of the publication of 12 September 1986 it was concluded that the identical imputation was not open. The considerations which led to that result apply with equal force to imputation 11(c).

That imputation reads:

"(c) Although acquitted of charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice the plaintiff is in fact guilty of such offences."

It was contended by the respondent that the matter published on 9 September 1986 and set out in Schedules "E" and "F" to the amended statement of claim - which the respondent intended to rely upon as a single publication - supported the imputation.

Hunt J ruled, quite correctly in our opinion, that schedule E when read alone was incapable of providing the necessary support for the imputation. This was because the article identified with some precision the perversions of justice with which the respondent had been charged. His Honour proceeded however to rule that schedule F supported the imputation because of the linking of questionable sentencing practices and perversions of justice.

However once the two articles are read together the clear distinction between the subject of the previous trial - attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the committal hearing and trial of a Sydney solicitor, Mr Morgan Ryan - and the sentencing disparities under discussion is maintained. This distinction is reinforced by the commentator's statement that in the respondent's previous trial which dealt with "pre trial misdeeds" other questions concerning sentencing arose.