Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1967 |
| Year | 1967 |
| Date | 1967 |
Australia - New South Wales - Libel and slander - Exemplary or punitive damages - Whether awardable - Whether limiting circumstances suggested in Rookes v. Barnard applicable. - Damages - Exemplary - Libel - Australia - Whether exemplary damages applicable. - Judicial Precedent - House of Lords decision - Whether contrary to Australian settled law - Matter of domestic or internal significance - Whether need for uniformity compelling - No necessary for altered approach in Australia - Libel - Damages. - Privy Council - Jurisdiction - Prerogative - Grant of leave to appeal with respondent unheard and question of jurisdiction to hear appeal considered - Whether leave to appeal granted under power of prerogative - Whether prerogative power limited - Whether granting of leave endowing jurisdiction - Whether plea to jurisdiction available on appeal - Ruling sought on competence of New South Wales court to award punitive damages for libel under Australian law in case for rehearing - Whether within scope of prerogative -
In a libel action the jury were directed that an award of punitive or exemplary damages was open to them, and the damages awarded totalled £30,000. The defendant appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the verdict to be set aside and a general new trial ordered on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in directing the jury that it was open to them to award punitive or exemplary damages. The Full Court unanimously set aside the verdict, and by a majority directed a new trial limited to damages. The High Court heard an appeal by the defendant from the refusal of the majority of the Full Court to order a new trial and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff from the order setting aside the verdict, and a similar cross-appeal by the plaintiff and appeal by a different defendant in a similar action. In both appeals the judgments were delivered on the same day and laid down that exemplary or punitive damages might be awarded in a libel action in Australia if facts and circumstances justified such an award, and that the limiting circumstances suggested in Rookes v. Barnard [
On the plaintiff appearing and taking preliminary objection that the appeal was not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee under section 3 of the
Held, (1) that, since a plea to the jurisdiction could always be made and the plaintiff was not present on the hearing of the petition for special leave when consideration was given to the question of jurisdiction, the board's decision to advise the grant of leave to appeal was not to be regarded as a final decision on the question of jurisdiction (post, pp. 1347F–H, 1348A).
(2) That leave to appeal was granted under the powers of the prerogative which endowed jurisdiction by the grant of leave and the question of the extent to which a ruling as to principle should be given became a matter of discretion (post, pp 1348B–D). While the practice of declining to give speculative opinions on hypothetical questions would be adhered to, the questions raised in the appeal were not hypothetical since it related to the decision of the High Court on the law to be applied in an actual case shortly to be retried (post, p. 1348D–F).
(3) That the contention that the appeal was not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee under section 3 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, was not valid (post, p. 1348G), in that the section did not primarily relate to any question of what appeals would be entertained, did not purport to be a definition of the range of appeals to be entertained or to contain any restriction or impose any limitation on any right to bring an appeal or complaint in the nature of an appeal, or impose any express or implied limitation on the prerogative rights and powers, and, since the ruling sought on the appeal was whether it would be competent to award punitive damages at the rehearing, the matter in issue appeared to be within the scope of the prerogative (post, pp. 1349B–D, H, 1350A).
(4) That, inasmuch as the question which faced the High Court was that settled law in Australia should be changed in the light of Rookes v. Barnard, assuming that Rookes v. Barnard had categorised the cases in which in England exemplary damages might be awarded for libel and that law had not developed by processes of faulty reasoning or been founded on misconceptions, it was impossible to say that the High Court were wrong in being unconvinced that a changed approach was desirable; and, accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed (post, pp. 1356C–G, 1358H, 1359A).
Per curiam. There are doubtless advantages if within those parts of the Commonwealth (or indeed of the English speaking world) where the law is built upon a common foundation development proceeds along similar lines …. But in matters which may considerably be of domestic or internal significance the need for uniformity is not compelling.
APPEAL (No. 4 of 1967) from an order of the High Court of Australia (June 2, 1966) allowing by a majority an appeal by Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. (defendant appellants) and varying the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (May 4, 1965) by directing a new trial on all issues, of a defamation action by Thomas Uren (plaintiff respondent) and dismissing with costs his cross appeal.
The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the board.
1967. April 27; May 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10. Antony Larkins Q.C. and David Hunt (both of New South Wales) for the appellants.
Clive Evatt Q.C. (of New South Wales), R. J. Southan and Richard Wainwright for the respondent.
The following cases, in addition to those referred to in the judgment, were cited in argument: Toronto Railway Co. v. KingF2; In re the Lord Bishop of NatalF3; Morgan v. LeechF4; Piro v. FosterF5; Skelton v. JonesF6; Grace Bros. Pty. v. Commonwealth of AustraliaF7; Manson v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.F8; Bell v. Midland Railway Co.F9; Yousopoff v. Metro Goldwyn MayerF10; Huckle v. MoneyF11; Benson v. FrederickF12; Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.F13; Loudon v. RyderF14; Williams v. SettleF15; Lough v. WardF16; Willoughby Municipal Council v. HalsteadF17; The Amiable NancyF18; Dreyfus Brothers v. Peruvian Guano Co. Ltd.F19; McArthur & Co. v. CornwallF20; The MedianaF21; Anderson v. CalvertF22; Smith v. StreatfieldF23; Williams v. CurrieF24; Crouch v. Great Northern Railway Co.F25; Tullidge v. WadeF26; Emblen v. MyersF27; Davidson v. SinclairF28; Rex v. EriswellF29; British Transport Commission v. GourlayF30; O'Connell v. Reg.F31; Shelton v. CollinsF32; Butterworth v. ButterworthF33; Fay v. ParkerF34; Forsdike v. StoneF35; Billingham v. HughesF36; Altrincham Electric Supply Co. v. Sale Urban District CouncilF37; Lozon v. PryseF38; Jones v. JonesF39; Tolley v. J. S. Fry & Sons Ltd.F40; Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd.F41; Robinson v. State of South Australia (No. 2)F42; David Syme & Co. Ltd. v. SwinburneF43; Addis v. Gramophone Co.F44; Knott v. Telegram...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
The Gleaner Company Ltd and another v Abrahams
...of controlling irresponsible behaviour by the media. It is not the practice of the Board to take a view on these matters. In Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren [1969] 1 AC 590, 644 Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest explained why the Board declined to interfere with the decision of the High......
-
Invercargill City Council v Hamlin
... ... 376D–E , H–377A , 378B–F ) ... Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Uren [ 1969 ] 1 A.C. 590 , P.C. applied ... ...
-
Roderick Cunningham v Attorney General for Jamaica and Others
...approach than that taken in the House of Lords in 1964. The approach in Australia was affirmed by the Privy Council in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren [1969] 1 AC 590 PC. In New Zealand in Taylor v Beare, the Court of Appeal declined to follow Cassells v Broome in holding that the ......
-
Dalton Yap v Union Bank of Jamaica Ltd
...Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet (No 3) [2000] 1 A.C. 147 or Times Newspaper 25 March 1999. The earlier case of Australian Consolidated Press v Uren [1967] 3 All ER 523 at 529 cites some of the relevant authorities on this issue. Once the offending order is struck out, the order to......
-
The Australian Constitution's Influence on the Common Law
...This was accepted by the Privy Council in Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967)117 CLR 221 and Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners v Gibbs Bright and Co (1974) 129 CLR576.18 (1996) 189 CLR 51.19 Through the enactment of the Australia Act 1986 (UK) c 2 and the Australia Act 1986 (C......
-
Punitive Damages and the Place of Punishment in Private Law
...assessment. As89 Australia (Uren vJohn Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118, 138 (ar med in AustralianConsolidated Press Ltd vUren [1969] 1 AC 590)); Canada (Paragon Properties Ltd vMagna Envest-ments Ltd (1972) 24 DLR (3d) 156, 167 (ar med in Vor v i s vInsurance Corp of Br itish Co......
-
Territory Courts and Federal Jurisdiction
...that of England was recognised before appeals to the Privy Council were finally limited: see Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967) 117 CLR 221, 238–9 (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest for the Judicial Committee). 76 Gleeson, above n 57, 80. Indeed, Australia's own national character ma......
-
The Development of the High Court's Willingness to Overrule Common Law Precedent
...‘high handed, insolent, vindictive or malicious’ towards the plaintiff: at 129 (Taylor J). 67 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967) 117 CLR 221 (PC), 238–41. As to the Privy Council’s willingness to allow the Australian common law to develop differently to Britain, see Castles, ab......
