Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1998
Neutral Citation1998-0520 HCA B,[1998] HCA 37
Date1998
Year1998
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
106 cases
  • Ganley v RTE
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 February 2017
    ...being that Mr Ganley is a fantasist when it comes to his purported business experiences. f. Chakravarti v. Advertiser Newspapers Limited (1998) HCA 37 86 This was a decision of the High Court of Australia in which the defendants pleaded, inter alia, that certain impugned newspaper articles......
  • Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail and Another v Nurul Izzah binti Anwar and Another
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Dr Ashti Hawrami v Journalism Development Network, Inc.
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • 23 August 2024
    ...… 35 The position, therefore, is, as Kirby J observed in the High Court of Australia in Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519, para 153 that: ‘Excessive commentary or misleading headlines which amount to commentary run the risk of depriving the text of the quality of fa......
  • Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 25 April 2007
    ...and accuracy rests on the defendant. 44 Reliance is placed on Dingle v Associated Newspapers; dicta by Kirby J in Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Limited [1998] HCA 37 and a decision of mine in Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2787 (QB). 45 The first point made by Mr Parkes is that, when one com......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • REPUTATION AND DEFAMATORY MEANING ON THE INTERNET
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...Law to Twibel Claims”(2013) 73 La L Rev 559 at 587–588. 161Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd[1995] 2 AC 65. 162[1995] 2 AC 65. 163193 CLR 519 at [134]. 164[2015] SGHC 38. 165[2012] EWHC B3. 166McGrath v Dawkins[2012] EWHC B3 at [53]. 167McGrath v Dawkins[2012] EWHC B3 at [53]. 16829 Mi......
  • Human Rights in the High Court of Australia, 1976-2003: The Righting of Australian Law?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 33-2, June 2005
    • 1 June 2005
    ...Act 1975 (Cth) in criminal proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and County Court of Victoria); Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 (Brennan CJ and McHugh J re: defamation law); Sinanovic v R (1998) 154 ALR 702 (Kirby J re: fairness in criminal trials); DPP (SA) v B (......
  • The Reformulated Contextual Truth Defence: More Radical That First Appears
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 50-2, June 2022
    • 1 June 2022
    ...Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1, 21–7; Grundmannv Georgeson [1996] Aust Torts Rep 81–396, 63, 513; Hart v Wrenn [1995] 5 NTLR 17, [11].12. (1998) 193 CLR 519, 529 [11] (‘Chakravarti’).13. Ibid 527–528 [8], 529 [13].208 Federal Law Review That view was not endorsed by the remaining members of the ......