Legal Research
Cases
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Redmore Pty Ltd

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Redmore Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 February 1989 20 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ.

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. REDMORE PROPRIETARY LIMITED (1989)

(1989) 166 CLR 454

28 February 1989

Contract

Contract—Statutory corporation—Statement that corporation was not to enter into contract without Minister's approval—Contravention—Effect—Ultra vires—Illegality—Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth), ss. 25(1)(a), 70(1)(a).

Decisions

MASON C.J., DEANE AND GAUDRON JJ. In July 1985, the respondent ("Redmore") became the owner of premises in Sydney of which the appellant ("the A.B.C.") was the tenant. Thereafter, a dispute arose between Redmore and the A.B.C. in relation to the tenancy. The A.B.C. and Redmore negotiated the terms of an agreement resolving that dispute and providing for the grant of a new tenancy of the premises by Redmore to the A.B.C. After the terms of that agreement had been negotiated, the A.B.C. changed its mind. The old dispute between the parties was engulfed in a new one. Redmore claimed that matters had proceeded beyond the stage of negotiation and that a new binding agreement had been made. The A.B.C. denied the existence of any agreement. If there was a concluded agreement, the A.B.C. repudiated it. Redmore countered by purportedly rescinding the claimed agreement.

2. In due course, Redmore instituted proceedings for declaratory relief and damages in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The A.B.C. denied liability on a variety of substantive and technical grounds. It denied that any concluded agreement had been purportedly made. If such an agreement had been purportedly made, it denied the authority of the officer who had dealt with Redmore on its behalf. It claimed that any such agreement was, in any event, unenforceable by reason of the combined effect of the provisions of s.54A(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (N.S.W.) and s.66A(1) of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cth). It asserted that the alleged agreement would have involved expenditure by it of more than $500,000 and was therefore either beyond the powers of the A.B.C. or unenforceable for the reason that it had failed to obtain the prior approval of the responsible Minister as required by the provisions of s.70(1)(a) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth) ("the Act").

3. At first instance in the Supreme Court, Redmore succeeded. The learned trial judge (Bryson J.) rejected all of the A.B.C.'s defences. He made orders declaring that there had been a binding agreement and that the A.B.C. had repudiated it. He referred the matter to a Master to inquire into and certify the amount of damages sustained by Redmore as a result of that repudiation by the A.B.C. The A.B.C. appealed from his Honour's judgment and orders to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal (Samuels and McHugh JJ.A.; Kirby P. dissenting) dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is from the decision and orders of the Court of Appeal.

4. The only issue on which the learned President of the Court of Appeal differed from the other members of that court was that raised by the A.B.C.'s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Redmore Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] HCA 15
Decision Date: 28 February 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Redmore Pty Ltd concerning the ABC's broadcast of a program that allegedly defamed Redmore. Redmore claimed damages for defamation arising from statements made in the program.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the ABC could rely on the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the defamatory statements broadcast. This involved determining whether the occasion of the broadcast was one which the law recognised as attracting qualified privilege, and if so, whether the privilege had been defeated by malice on the part of the ABC.

The Court analysed the concept of qualified privilege, noting that it arises in circumstances where the law recognises a duty or interest to publish information, and a corresponding duty or interest in the recipient to receive that information. The High Court ultimately found that the occasion of the broadcast was not one that attracted qualified privilege, as the ABC had not established the requisite duty or interest in publishing the defamatory material to the wider public. Consequently, the defence of qualified privilege was not available to the ABC.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Full Federal Court and remitting the matter to the Federal Court for further hearing on the question of damages.

Orders