Lange v. Atkinson et al., (1999) 250 N.R. 58 (PC)

• Case Date: October 28, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 250 N.R. 58 (PC)

Lange v. Atkinson (1999), 250 N.R. 58 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

D.R. Lange (appellant) v. (1) J.B. Atkinson and (2) Australian Consolidated Press NZ Limited (respondents)

(Privy Council Appeal No. 71 of 1998)

Indexed As: Lange v. Atkinson et al.

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

October 28, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, sued Atkinson and Australian Consolidated Press for libel. Atkinson had written an article on the plain­tiff and had it published in a newspaper owned by Australian Consolidated. The article was generally critical of the plaintiff's per­formance as a politician and as Prime Minis­ter, and was accompanied by a political cartoon. The defendants asserted various defences including truth, honest opinion, failure to mitigate damage, "political expres­sion" and qualified privilege. The plaintiff applied to strike out the political expression defence as disclosing no defence known to law. The trial judge, in a decision reported at [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 22, dismissed the appli­cation. The plaintiff appealed.

The New Zealand Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1998] 3 N.Z.L.R. 424, dismissed the appeal. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

The Privy Council allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for rehearing.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2986.1

Defences - Qualified privilege - Political expression - The plaintiff, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, sued Atkinson and the Australian Consoli­dated Press for libel - Atkinson had writ­ten an article on the plaintiff and had it pub­lished in a newspaper owned by Aus­tralian Con­solidated - The article related to mat­ters which had previously been the subject of public comment by the plaintiff while he was a Parliament member and while he acted as a political commentator and columnist - Consequently, the defend­ants claimed, inter alia, "political express­ion" and qualified privilege - The plaintiff un­successfully applied to strike out the politi­cal expression defence as disclosing no de­fence known to law - On appeal, the Judi­cial Committee of the Privy Council held that striking a balance between free­dom of expression and protec­tion of repu­tation called for a value judg­ment de­pendant upon local political and social conditions - However, because there had been recent English jurisprudence on the is­sue of po­litical expression by the House of Lords (Reynolds v. Times News­papers Ltd. et al.), the Privy Council felt that the New Zealand Court of Appeal should re­con­sider the matter - See para­graphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 182 C.L.R. 104 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Stephens v. West Australian Newspapers Ltd. (1994), 182 C.L.R. 211 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Hyams v. Peterson, [1991] 3 N.Z.L.R. 648 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp. (1997), 189 C.L.R. 520 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 W.L.R. 862 (C.A.), affd. (1999), 250 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 12, 14].

Hamlin v. Invercargill (City), [1996] A.C. 624; 194 N.R. 16 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

W. v. W., [1999] 2 N.Z.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Templeton v. Jones, [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Television New Zealand Ltd. v. Quinn, [1996] 3 N.Z.L.R. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hines, [1997] 3 N.Z.L.R. 529, refd to. [para. 18].

Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Uren, [1969] 1 A.C. 590 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McKay Report - see United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Defamation.

United Kingdom, Report of the Committee on Defamation (McKay Report) (1977), generally [para. 18].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Agents:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard before Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craig­head and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun­cil.

On October 28, 1999, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead delivered the following judgment for the Privy Council.