Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller
Case
•
[2020] NSWCA 102
•01 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102
[2020] NSWCA 102
01 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Australian News Channel Pty Ltd and others, sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a defamation dispute with the respondent, Ms. Voller. The core of the dispute involved allegations of defamation arising from publications made by the applicants.
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Negligence & Tort
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Standing
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Zuchowski v Howe; Howe v Cavendish Properties and Zuchowski [2022] VCC 1604
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Bailey v McCrae & Ors (Civil Dispute)
[2024] ACAT 82
Clinch v Rep (No. 2)
[2020] ACAT 68
O’Donnell v Lloyd
[2020] NSWDC 787
Cases Cited
20
Statutory Material Cited
0
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd
[2001] HCA 68
Webb v Bloch
[1928] HCA 50
Trkulja v Google LLC
[2018] HCA 25