Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Production of document during defamation trial did not require dismissal of jury
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and refuses to set aside a jury dismissal of a defamation claim by an airline against persons involved in a 'nascent trade union' for pilots, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the refusal of the judge to discharge the jury following production of a document that had not been discovered did not give rise to any prejudice against the airline; (b) that the recipient of the document had not been a servant or agent of the defendants, so that the document had not been discoverable pursuant to an order of discovery; and (c) other matters raised by the airline had been adequately dealt with by the trial judge in his charge to the jury.
Noonan J (nem diss): Defamation - dismissal by jury of claim - qualified privilege - refusal to dismiss jury - emergence of undiscovered document during evidence - claim by airline against pilots - allegation made by 'nascent trade union' - use by organisation of e-mail list - 'pilot updates' - allegation that words used in 'pilot update' amounted to an allegation that the airline was guilty of market manipulation - misleading investors - abuse of market position - insider dealing - receipt of information by e-mail - document not discovered - e-mail concerning profit warning after sale of shares by airline officers - whether failure to discovery document was breach of discovery order - application to discharge - finding by jury that allegation was defamatory but not malicious - jurisdiction of appeal court - whether a fair trial could have been had following production of document - whether document had been in the power or procurement of the defendants - whether recipient of document was an agent of the defendant - whether defendant had an enforceable legal right to obtain the document - information from relevant document excluded from communication with defendants - whether defendants aware of relevant document - charge to jury - qualified privilege - whether evidence had been adduced to ground a plea of qualified privilege - 'open windows' in context of share dealing - whether verdict was perverse.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
