Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1966
Neutral Citation[1966] HCA 40,1966-0602 HCA D
Year1966
Date1966
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
186 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Contempt, defamation, and the dissemination of online poison: part two
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 6 July 2022
    ...while Google was content to watch him do so and earn revenue in the process. Footnotes 1 E.g. Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; Costello v Random House Australia Pty Ltd [1999] ACTSC 13; Conlon v Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2008] SADC 91; Hockey v Fai......
5 books & journal articles
  • Involuntary Detention and the Separation of Judicial Power
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 35-1, March 2007
    • 1 March 2007
    ...to the availability of exemplary or punitive damages under the common law of tort in Australia, see Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 and Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185. In contrast, 'aggravated' damages are theoretically compensatory, and ar......
  • Punitive Damages and the Place of Punishment in Private Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 84-6, November 2021
    • 1 November 2021
    ...to theircounterparts in Australia and Canada when it comes to their assessment. As89 Australia (Uren vJohn Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118, 138 (ar med in AustralianConsolidated Press Ltd vUren [1969] 1 AC 590)); Canada (Paragon Properties Ltd vMagna Envest-ments Ltd (1972) 24 DL......
  • Breach of Contract and 'Unjust' Enrichment
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XIII-2010, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...of the courts in relation to 51 14 July 1976 (HC). 54 (1996) 40 NSWLR 500. 55 (1996) 40 NSWLR 500, at 509. 56 See LRC, note 16. 57 (1966) 117 CLR 118. 58 (1966) 117 CLR 118, at 153. 59 Backwell vAAA [1997] 1 VR 182, at 203. 60 [1992] 2 VR 441. 61 [1992] 2 VR 441, at 448. Trinity College Law......
  • MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE: A TORT IN TENSION.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 43 No. 1, August 2019
    • 1 August 2019
    ...(Hart Publishing, 2008) 247, 252. (164) [1964] AC 1129 (House of Lords) ('Rookes'). (165) See Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118, 138-9 (Taylor J); Rookes (n 164) 1226-7 (Lord (166) Rookes (n 164) 1223. (167) Ibid 1226. (168) Note that while there is a degree of align......
  • Get Started for Free