Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1967
Date1967
CourtPrivy Council
[PRIVY COUNCIL] AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LIMITED APPELLANTS AND THOMAS UREN RESPONDENT ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1967 April 27; May 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10; July 24 LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST, LORD PEARCE, LORD UPJOHN, LORD WILBERFORCE and SIR ALFRED NORTH.

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 - Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 41), s. 3. - Privy Council - Leave to appeal - Special leave - Respondent not present at hearing of petition for special leave - Consideration given to question of jurisdiction to hear appeal - Whether decision to advise grant of leave to appeal final - Ruling on principle - Extent - Whether question of extent of ruling to be given becoming discretionary - Speculative opinion on hypothetical question - Decision of High Court of Australia on law applicable in actual case for rehearing - Whether question hypothetical.

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 [1964] A.C. 1129; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 269; [1964] 1 All E.R. 367, H.L.(E.) need not be applied; the defendant&s appeal was allowed by a majority and a new trial was directed on all issues, the plaintiff&s cross-appeal being dismissed. On a petition for special leave to appeal, at which the plaintiff did not appear, consideration was given to the question whether there would be jurisdiction in the Judicial Committee to hear the appeal, and the board&s decision was to advise the grant of leave to enter and prosecute an appeal “against so much of the decision of the High Court as determined that it was competent to award punitive damages.”

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 Judicial Committee Act, 1833,F1 contending that the High Court had merely directed a new trial on all issues and had not determined that an award of damages in the case was competent, and on the defendant's contention that the High Court erred in law in that the decision should have been that punitive or exemplary damages in a libel action could be awarded only if a case could be brought within one of the categories described by Lord Devlin in his speech in Rookes v. Barnard:

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).

Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales [1950] A.C. 235; 65 T.L.R. 633; [1949] 2 All E.R. 755, P.C.; Nelungadoo Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia [1951] A.C. 34, P.C. and Patterson v. Solomon [1960] A.C. 579; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 685; [1960] 2 All E.R. 20, P.C. considered.

Dennis Hotels Pty. Ltd. v. State of Victoria [1962] A.C. 25; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 268; [1961] 2 All E.R. 940, P.C. distinguished.

(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).

Hull v. M'Kenna [1926] Ir.App. 402, P.C. and Attorney-General for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Railway Co. [1903] A.C. 524; 19 T.L.R. 612, P.C. applied.

Rex v. Louw [1904] A.C. 412; 20 T.L.R. 572, P.C. distinguished.

(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).

Reg. v. Bertrand (1867) L.R. 1 P.C. 520 applied.

(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).

Whitfield v. De Lauret & Co. Ltd. (1920) 29 C.L.R. 71; Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. v. McGregor (1928) 41 C.L.R. 254; Smith's

Newspapers Ltd. v. Becker (1932) 47 C.L.R. 279; Rookes v. Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 269; [1964] 1 All E.R. 367, H.L.(E.), considered.

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.

Decision of the High Court of Australia affirmed.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Invercargill City Council v Hamlin
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 12 Febrero 1996
  • The Gleaner Company Ltd and another v Abrahams
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 14 Julio 2003
    ...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......
  • R Ats. Thorpe v Molyneaux
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 31 Enero 1979
    ...v. Broome [1972] A.C. 1027; [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 rather than the Privy Council decision in Australian Consolidated Press v. Uren [1969] 1 A.C. 590; but this was only after reviewing both sets of decisions, and after both the majority and minority judgments had made the point that the Jamai......
  • Dalton Yap v Union Bank of Jamaica Ltd
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 31 Enero 2002
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 Diciembre 2019
    ...Queen (1962–1963) 111 CLR 610 at 632–633. See also generally Michael Kirby, “Legal Obligations. Legal Revolutions” (2018) 134 LQR 43. 20 [1969] 1 AC 590. The Privy Council affirmed the High Court of Australia's refusal to follow the more limited categories for the award of punitive damages ......
  • The Centralisation of Judicial Power within the Australian Federal System
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 42-2, June 2014
    • 1 Junio 2014
    ...5th ed, 1976) 58–60. 111 (1999) 200 CLR 485, 576. 112 Ibid 583. 113 Ibid 582. 114 See Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1967) 117 CLR 221 , 238. 2014 The Centralisation of Judicial Power 377 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Rul......
  • Conflicts and Choice of Law within the Australian Constitutional Context
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 31-2, June 2003
    • 1 Junio 2003
    ...Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation',reproduced in Jesting Pilate (1965) 204–5.33 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren [1969] 1 AC 590, 641–4.34 (1997) 189 CLR 520, 563–6 ('Lange v ABC') (per curiam).35 See authority gathered in Priestley, above n 31, fn 44. See also Kable v DP......
  • Territory Courts and Federal Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 33-1, March 2005
    • 1 Marzo 2005
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT