Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Fairfax Media Publications; Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102 Hearing dates: 17 December 2019 Date of orders: 01 June 2020 Decision date: 01 June 2020 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Meagher JA and Simpson AJA at [56]Decision: (1) Grant the applicants leave to appeal from the answer given to the separate question in the Common Law Division on 24 June 2019.
(2) Direct that the draft notice of appeal in the white folder be filed within 7 days.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.
(4) Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in this Court.
(5) Dismiss the notice of motion of Bauer Media Pty Ltd, Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd and Seven West Media Ltd filed 23 August 2019.Category: Principal judgment Parties: 2019/227059:
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Dylan Voller (Respondent)2019/227068:
Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Dylan Voller (Respondent)2019/227080:
Seven West Media Ltd; Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd; Bauer Media Pty Ltd (Interveners)
Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Dylan Voller (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr J Hmelnitsky SC / Mr MJ Lewis / Mr D Hume (Applicants in all matters)
Mr P Gray SC / Mr R Potter / Ms L Goodchild (Respondent in all matters)
Mr B McClintock SC / Mr M Richardson (Interveners)
Banki Haddock Fiora (All Applicants)
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors (Respondent)
Mark O’Brien Legal (Interveners)
File Number(s): 2019/227059; 2019/227068; 2019/227080 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 24 June 2019
- Before:
- Rothman J
- File Number(s):
- 2017/219519; 2017/219538; 2017/219556
headnote
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Fairfax Media Publications, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (“the applicants”) publish newspapers in NSW, or operate television stations, or both. The applicants maintain Facebook pages on which they publish newspaper articles with an accompanying comment, image and headline. In December 2016- February 2017 the applicants posted news items concerning the incarceration of the respondent, Mr Dylan Voller, in a juvenile justice detention centre in the Northern Territory. Third parties posted comments critical of the respondent. The respondent commenced defamation proceedings against the applicants claiming that particular comments posted by third parties conveyed imputations that were defamatory of him, and that the applicants were liable as publishers of the third party comments.
A judge in the Common Law Division directed the determination of a separate question under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR), r 28.2, as to whether for the purposes of defamation law the applicants published the third party comments. The trial judge answered this in the affirmative. The applicants sought leave to appeal this answer.
Although the applicants had not filed defences the judge also ruled that they could not rely on a defence of innocent dissemination under s 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
Seven…
Continue reading Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in law in finding that the applicants were liable for defamation. This involved considering the application of defamation law to publications made on social media platforms, specifically the extent of an employer's liability for comments posted by third parties on their Facebook pages.
The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, determined that the primary judge's finding of liability was correct. The Court applied the principles of defamation law, particularly in the context of online publications, and concluded that the applicants had indeed published the defamatory material. The Court found that the employer's Facebook page was a medium through which the defamatory statements were published, and that the employer had facilitated and was therefore responsible for that publication.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the applicants leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs, and a notice of motion filed by other media entities was also dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant the applicants leave to appeal from the answer given to the separate question in the Common Law Division on 24 June 2019.
(2) Direct that the draft notice of appeal in the white folder be filed within 7 days.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.
(4) Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in this Court.
(5) Dismiss the notice of motion of Bauer Media Pty Ltd, Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd and Seven West Media Ltd filed 23 August 2019.
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.