NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2003) 56 NSWLR 276
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : ARTHUR HARRIS v 718932 [2003] NSWCA 38 HEARING DATE(S) : 9 December 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 March 2003
JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Stein JA at 32; Santow JA at 33 DECISION : Appeal allowed. Orders made
CATCHWORDS : DEFAMATION - action for distinct republication of libel not for same damage as action for earlier publication and not barred by Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5(1)(b) - DEFAMATION - action for republication of libel not barred by judgment for earlier publication - RES JUDICATA - judgment for publication of libel does not bar action for distinct republication of same libel - SUCCESSIVE TORTFEASORS - tortfeasors whose separate acts cause separate damage - not joint or concurrent tortfeasors Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969 Interpretation Act 1987 Defamation Act Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJ QB 231 CA Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 CA Weld Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956 Macdougall v Knight (1890) 25 QBD 1 CA Thomson v Lambert [1938] 2 DLR 545 (SCC) Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 173 Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162 CA, [1964] AC 371 Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185, [117 ER 75] CASES CITED : Prowse v McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 284 David Syme & Co Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 513 John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 CA Thompson v Smiths Ship Repairers Ltd [1984] QB 405 Duke of Brunswick v Pepper (1848) 2 Car & K 683, [175 ER 286] Freshwater v Bulmer Rayon Co [1933] Ch 162 CA 186, [1933] AC 661 Tang Man Sit v Capracious Investments Ltd [1996] AC 514 Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 635 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 ARTHUR HARRIS PARTIES : v 718932 PTY LIMITED (formerly Globe Press Pty Limited) & Ors FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41011/01 Appellant - T K Tobin QC/D Campbell SC/ J W Wormington COUNSEL : Respondents - B R McClintock SC/ M L Sneddon Respondents 4/5 - C A Evatt Appellant - Verekers SOLICITORS : Respondents 1&2 - Bush Burke & Company Respondents 3&4 - Ramrakha Jenkins
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate