Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading

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.