Legal Research
Cases
Betfair Ltd v Nason

Betfair Ltd v Nason

Case [2006] ACTSC 111 13 November 2006

Type to search within this case.

BETFAIR LIMITED & ORS v ROBERT NASON
[2006] ACTSC 111 (13 NOVEMBER 2006)

DEFAMATION – Pleading – defence pleading alternative meaning – permissibility of Polly Peck defence.
DEFAMATION – Imputations – words complained of not supporting innuendo pleaded – certain imputations struck out as not capable of being defamatory.
DEFAMATION – Pleading – reliance upon any defamatory meaning found by court – embarrassing pleading.

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 270
Defamation Act1889 (Qld)
Defamation Act 1957 (Tas)

Polly Peck Plc v Trelford [1986] 1 QB 1000
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Limited (1998) 193 CLR 519
Kelly v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1998) 147 FLR 410
Woodger v Federal Capital Press (1992) 107 ACTR 1
Steiner Wilson & Webster Pty Ltd t/as Abbey Bridal v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] ACTSC 123 (unreported, 18 November 1999), Crispin J; (20000) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-537
Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81
David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) 1 VR 667
Nationwide News Pty Ltdv Moodie (2003) 28 WAR 314
Manock v Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd (2004) 88 SASR 495
Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd v Manock (2005) 91 SASR 206
Whelan v John Fairfax Publications (2002) 56 NSWLR 89
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Zunter [2006] NSWCA 227
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliaban SAL (1974-1975) 134 CLR 1
Jones v Skelton [1963] SR (NSW) 644
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Limited [1963] 2 WLR 1063
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1963] 1 QB 340

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd (2005) 157 ACTR 28
Gatley on Libel and Slander (1981) London, Sweet & Maxwell, 8^th ed, P Lewis

No. SC 307 and 725 of 2005

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 13 November 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 307 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )          No. SC 725 of 2005

BETWEEN:BETFAIR LIMITED
(UK NUMBER 5140986)
First Plaintiff

AND:THE SPORTING EXCHANGE LIMITED (UK NUMBER 770548)
Second Plaintiff

AND:PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING LIMITED (ACN 009 071 167)
Third Plaintiff

AND:ROBERT NASON
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  13 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Proceedings in matters SC 307/2005 and SC 725/2005 be consolidated. The parties have liberty to apply for such consequential orders as are necessary.

In matter SC 307/2005, paragraph 12 of the defendant’s defence be struck out.

In matter SC 725/2005, paragraphs 8(a), (c), (d) and 8(e) of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim be struck out.

In matters SC 307/2005 and SC 725/2005, paragraph 9 in each of the statements of claim in those matters be struck out.

The question of costs is reserved.

These are proceedings for defamation in which the plaintiffs and the defendant are the same but which relate to statements made by the defendant on two separate…

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.

Continue reading Betfair Ltd v Nason

Details

AGLC: Betfair Ltd v Nason [2006] ACTSC 111
Case: [2006] ACTSC 111
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings were between Betfair Limited, The Sporting Exchange Limited and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (the plaintiffs) and Robert Nason (the defendant). The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for defamation on two separate occasions. The Supreme Court of the ACT heard applications to consolidate the proceedings, to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence and statements of claim and to make an order for costs. The court held that the proceedings should be consolidated and that the applications to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence and statements of claim should be granted. The court reserved the question of costs. Betfair Limited is a United Kingdom company that conducts a betting exchange in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world. The Sporting Exchange Limited and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited are participating in a joint venture to set up a Betfair branded business in Australia. The defendant, Robert Nason, is the Chief Executive Officer of Racing Victoria. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant defamed them in two separate occasions. In the first occasion, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant allegedly said to a journalist of The Australian newspaper that granting a licence to Betfair could see Tasmania's racing industries thrown out of mainland betting pools and Sky Channel's TV coverage. It would be devastating – who wants to invest in an industry that allows organised crime to flourish. In the second occasion, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant allegedly said to a journalist for The Herald Sun newspaper that if Betfair was licensed in Australia, racing would soon be dominated by organised crime lords who would decide which horses win which races. The court held that the proceedings should be consolidated and that the applications to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence and statements of claim should be granted. The court held that the defendant was not permitted to plead an alternative meaning of the alleged defamatory statement of which the plaintiffs do not complain. The court held that the imputations in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim in SC 725/2005 were not reasonably capable of being conveyed to ordinary reasonable readers. The court held that paragraph 9 in each of the statements of claim was embarrassing and should be struck out.

Orders