DEMPSTER v COATES [1990] NSWCA 52

DEMPSTER v COATES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, CLARKE and HANDLEY JJA 22 and 23 February 1990, 11 April 1990

[1990] NSWCA 52

The respondent sued the appellant claiming damages for three allegedly defamatory publications by the appellant. The first claim arose out of statements by the appellant in an interview with a reporter prior to a radio programme. The second arose out of the discussion between the appellant and the reporter in the radio interview and the third concerned statements made, and correspondence sent, by the appellant to a journalist. On the first day of the trial the appellant's wife appeared and said that her husband had been detained in Hong Kong. The Trial Judge adjourned the hearing for two days. On the next occasion the appellant's wife again appeared and said that because of the appellant's illness he had been unable to return to Sydney in time for the hearing. The respondent however adduced evidence which persuaded the Trial Judge that the appellant had deliberately set out to frustrate the respondent in his attempts to have the case heard. Any further adjournment was refused. The case proceeded and on the first day the appellant was unrepresented. Representation was obtained on the second and ensuing days of the trial. At the end of the summing-up the jury retired to consider a number of questions which had been submitted by the Trial Judge. Consequent upon the answers which the jury gave to those questions the Trial Judge entered a verdict for the respondent for $58,000.00 in respect of the first claim, a verdict for the appellant on the second claim and a verdict for the respondent for $62,000.00 on the third claim. In their answers the jury found that the statements made by the appellant in the first interview conveyed the imputations upon which the respondent relied. They also found that words were spoken in the second interview to the same effect as those spoken in the first interview but that those words did not convey the imputations upon which the respondent relied in respect of both interviews. Held: