McBride v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited & Anor

MCCOLL JA: The court is in a position to deliver its decision and I will invite Justice Handley to deliver the first reasons.

HANDLEY AJA: In my opinion leave to appeal should not be granted to review the decision of Price J refusing to strike out the defendant’s contextual imputations. The thrust of Mr Hale’s submissions was directed at the defendants’ contextual imputations (b) (c) and (d). Those imputations are not conveyed in express terms by the matter complained of. This referred to two courses of conduct, the first relating to the plaintiff’s MD thesis in the late 1950s, and the second his alleged misappropriation of the research data and conclusions of Dr McCreadie in or about 1972. The two courses of conduct were separated by up to fifteen years.

In my opinion it would be open to a jury, reading between the lines in the manner authorised by Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234, 258 to find that the matter complained of conveyed not only the specific allegations I have referred to but also the general allegations pleaded in the contextual imputations. In other words there was a general problem in the plaintiff’s approach to scientific research which was not limited to the two courses of conduct specifically mentioned.

I would therefore propose that leave to appeal should be refused.

MCCOLL JA: I agree.

YOUNG CJ IN EQ: I also agree.

MCCOLL JA: As I have already indicated that the court would not grant leave to appeal from Price J’s amendment decision the order of the court is that the summons is dismissed with costs.