Anthony Tony Rinaldi v Cobbittee Publications Pty Ltd & 2 Ors

The matter before the court involved a defamation claim brought by Anthony Tony Rinaldi against Cobbittee Publications Pty Ltd and two others. Rinaldi alleged that a publication by the defendants contained defamatory material that harmed his reputation. In response, the publisher cross-claimed against the informants, seeking either contribution or indemnity for the false information provided to them. The central issue before the court was to determine whether the publisher's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances and, if so, to apportion the responsibility among the parties involved.

The court considered the principles set out in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, particularly section 5, which deals with contribution among joint tortfeasors. It was necessary to examine the publisher's reliance on the information provided and whether this reliance was reasonable. The court also assessed the extent to which each party contributed to the publication of the defamatory material. It was essential to establish the degree of fault or negligence, if any, on the part of the publisher and the informants.

In its judgment, the court found that the publisher's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The publisher had acted on information provided by the informants, and there was no evidence to suggest that the publisher had any reason to doubt the veracity of the information. Consequently, the court held that the publisher was not liable for any contribution or indemnity. The court further determined that the primary responsibility for the defamatory publication lay with the informants, who supplied the false information. The court apportioned the liability accordingly, reflecting the respective contributions to the defamation.

The court ordered that Cobbittee Publications Pty Ltd and the two informants were to bear their respective shares of the liability for the defamatory publication. The exact apportionment was left to be determined in further proceedings, but the court clearly established the primary responsibility of the informants.