Adams v Herald and Weekly Times Limited

50 CLR 1

[ ] ADAMS

THE HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES LIMITED RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF High Court-AppealAppeal as of right-Trial of action in Supreme Court of

State-Trial by jury-Verdict for defendant-Application to Supreme Court for new trial-New trial refused-Final order-Judiciary Act 1903-1933 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 65 of 1933), sec. 35 (1) (a).

An order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of a State refusing to set aside a judgment for a defendant and grant a new trial is a final order and not an interlocutory order, and leave to appeal to the High Court from such an order is, therefore, unnecessary.

Leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria (Full Court) refused.

APPLICATION for leave to appeal.

Herbert Adams brought an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. for libel, in which he

50 CLR 2

claimed £1,000 damages. The action was heard by Macfarlan J.

and a jury. The trial Judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the article complained of was not capable of bearing the defamatory meaning attributed to it by the plaintiff. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff applied to the Full Court of the Supreme Court for a new trial, which was refused.

The plaintiff now applied to the High Court for leave to appeal from that decision.

Notice of the plaintiff's intention to move the Court for leave to appeal was served on the respondent.

Cussen (with him Minogue), for the applicant. Leave to appeal is sought as it is doubtful whether the order of the Full Court is final or interlocutory.

Lewis, for the respondent, referred to Nolan v. Clifford 1.

THE COURT delivered the following judgment :- We refuse the application on the ground that the applicant is entitled to bring an appeal as of right.

Application refused. Solicitor for the applicant, N. H. Sonenberg. Solicitor for the respondent, Norman A. Miller.

1(1904) 1 C.L.R. 429

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Herbert Adams commenced an action for libel against The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking £1,000 in damages. The trial judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, ruling that the article in question could not be interpreted in the defamatory sense alleged by the plaintiff. Consequently, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Adams then applied to the Full Court of the Supreme Court for a new trial, which was refused. Adams subsequently sought leave to appeal to the High Court from this refusal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court refusing to set aside a judgment for the defendant and grant a new trial constituted a final or interlocutory order. This determination was crucial for establishing whether an appeal to the High Court required leave.

The High Court held that an order of a State Supreme Court's Full Court refusing to set aside a judgment for a defendant and grant a new trial is a final order. Therefore, an appeal to the High Court from such an order is an appeal as of right, and leave to appeal is not necessary. The Court refused the application for leave to appeal on the basis that the applicant was entitled to appeal as of right.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established