CITATION: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading [2004] NSWCA 411 HEARING DATE(S): 14 April 2004 JUDGMENT DATE:
15 November 2004JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Ipp JA at 109; McColl JA at 139 DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed. CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - whether the trial judge was bound to record the unanimous answers of the jury and enter judgment accordingly - whether the trial judge had power to discharge the jury and order a new trial - whether power to discharge jury was properly exercised - whether the jury's answer that imputation was not defamatory was perverse or unreasonable or a conclusion that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could reach - scope of appellate review of determination of jury in defamation proceedings - scope of new trial. LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s7A
Supreme Court Rules Pt 34 r 8ACASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430
Australian Newspaper Company Limited v Bennett [1894] AC 284
Beran v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 107
Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 449
Bradbury v NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd (1927) SR(NSW) 15
Bromley v Tonkin (1987) 11 NSWLR 211
Broome v Agar (1928) 138 LT 698
Cairns v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1983) 2 NSWLR 708
Capital & Counties Bank Ltd v George Henty & Sons (1882) 7 App Cas 741
Charlwood Industries Pty Limited v Brent [2002] NSWCA 201
Cinevest Ltd v Yirandi Productions Ltd [2001] NSWCA 68
Costains (Australia) Pty Limited v Atkinson (NSWCA 5 October 1995 unreported)
Cunningham v Ryan (1919) 27 CLR 294
Ex parte Burns (1893) 10 WN(NSW) 70
Field v Timber Industries Ltd (NSWCA, 17 June 1990, unreported)
Gardiner v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171
Gorman v Barber & Ors [2004] NSWCA 402
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2001) 54 NSWLR 165
Hardy v Harris BC8601168 - an edited version appears at (1986) Aust Torts Reports 80-003
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 77 ALJR 1657
Lithgow District Hospital v Miller (NSWCA, 8 December 1994, unreported)
Lockhart v Harrison (1928) 139 LT 521
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1998) 13 NSWLR 208
Mourani v Jeldi Manufacturing Pty Ltd (1983) 57 ALJR 825
Mularczyk v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 467
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Heggie [2001] NSWCA 257
Pavy v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 46
Reader's Digest Services Pty Limited v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2003] NSWSC 716
R v Meany (1862) 169 ER 1368;
Safeway Stores plc v Tate [2001] QB 1120
Saffron v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 254
Sarma v Federal Capital Press of Australia [2002] NSWCA 93PARTIES :
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (Claimant/Cross-Opponent)
Paul George READING (Opponent/Cross-Claimant)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40695/03 COUNSEL: B WALKER, SC/ R FRANCOIS (Claimant/ Cross-Opponent)
B McCLINTOCK, SC/ M RICHARDSON (Opponent/ Cross-Claimant)
Continue reading Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading [2004] NSWCA 411
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 411
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of a trial judge who had discharged a jury and ordered a new trial in defamation proceedings brought by Mr Reading. The central dispute concerned whether the jury's finding that a particular imputation was not defamatory was perverse, and consequently, whether the trial judge had erred in discharging the jury and ordering a new trial.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge was bound to record the jury's unanimous answers and enter judgment accordingly, or if the judge possessed the power to discharge the jury and order a new trial. Further, the Court had to consider whether, if such power existed, it was properly exercised in this instance, specifically examining whether the jury's conclusion that the imputation was not defamatory was so unreasonable or perverse that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached it. The scope of appellate review concerning a jury's determination in defamation proceedings and the circumstances under which a new trial may be ordered were also key issues.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in discharging the jury and ordering a new trial. The judges reasoned that the jury's finding, while perhaps surprising, was not so unreasonable as to be perverse. They applied the principle that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with a jury's verdict unless it is demonstrably irrational or unsupported by evidence. The Court concluded that the jury's answer was a possible conclusion that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could reach, and therefore the trial judge lacked the power to override it.
Leave to appeal was granted, the ABC's appeal was allowed, and Mr Reading's cross-appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge was bound to record the jury's unanimous answers and enter judgment accordingly, or if the judge possessed the power to discharge the jury and order a new trial. Further, the Court had to consider whether, if such power existed, it was properly exercised in this instance, specifically examining whether the jury's conclusion that the imputation was not defamatory was so unreasonable or perverse that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached it. The scope of appellate review concerning a jury's determination in defamation proceedings and the circumstances under which a new trial may be ordered were also key issues.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in discharging the jury and ordering a new trial. The judges reasoned that the jury's finding, while perhaps surprising, was not so unreasonable as to be perverse. They applied the principle that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with a jury's verdict unless it is demonstrably irrational or unsupported by evidence. The Court concluded that the jury's answer was a possible conclusion that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could reach, and therefore the trial judge lacked the power to override it.
Leave to appeal was granted, the ABC's appeal was allowed, and Mr Reading's cross-appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.