Brown v Random House Australia Pty Ltd - [2014] NSWSC 1505

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Brown v Random House Australia Pty Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1505

Hearing Date(s): 24 October 2014

Decision Date: 30 October 2014

Before: McCallum J

Decision:
Plaintiff's imputations ruled to be capable of arising

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - imputations - whether capable of arising - no question of principle

Cases Cited: Corby v Allen & Unwin [2014] NSWCA 227
Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties: Christopher Brown (plaintiff)
Random House Australia Pty Ltd (defendant)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
M Richardson (plaintiff)
R Potter (defendant)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Johnson Winter & Slattery (plaintiff)
Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd (defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/258357

Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation arising out of the publication of a book called "He who must be Obeid, the untold story" by Ms Kate McClymont and Mr Linton Besser. The proceedings are brought against the publisher of the book, Random House Australia Pty Ltd.
Random House accepts that the book is defamatory of the plaintiff, Mr Christopher Brown. The book refers to "Chris Brown, the son of controversial former federal tourism minister John Brown". The plaintiff is in fact the son of the former minister John Brown and so is undoubtedly identified to readers by that description. However, the conduct described in that passage of the book is that of a different Chris Brown. It is a clear case of wrong identification.
Random House accepts that to be the case and, accepting that the book is defamatory of the plaintiff, has withdrawn the book and publicly apologised to him. The plaintiff has nonetheless commenced these proceedings seeking damages for defamation.
Although Random House accepts that the book is defamatory of the plaintiff, it does not accept that the book is capable of conveying the defamatory meanings he has specified in the statement of claim. There is no objection to the form of any of the imputations. Further, there is no objection to imputation (c), which is:
The plaintiff failed to pay a large debt that he owed the ANZ Bank so that that bank sued him and obtained judgment against him, amongst others.
Random House contends that the remaining four imputations relied upon by the plaintiff are incapable of arising. This judgment determines that issue as a separate question in the proceedings.
The applicable principles are well-established, were not in dispute and need not be repeated here. Brief reference should, however, be made to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Corby v Allen & Unwin [2014] NSWCA 227, which serves as a reminder of the great caution mandated before striking out an imputation.
Imputation (a) is:
The plaintiff knowingly associates with and engages in business activities with Eddie Obeid who is Australia's most corrupt politician.
Mr Potter, who appears for Random House, noted that the structure of the book is to follow a chronological account of the life of Eddie Obeid. Chapter 1, headed "The…

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 Brown v Random House Australia 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: [2014] NSWSC 1505
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brown v Random House Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, an Australian writer, sued the defendant, a publishing company, for defamation. The dispute centred on the publication of a book by the defendant that allegedly contained defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the statements made in the book were capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The court needed to determine if the published material had the potential to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people. Additionally, the court considered whether the publication of the book constituted a breach of the plaintiff's privacy rights.

The court found that the statements in the book were indeed capable of conveying defamatory imputations, which could harm the plaintiff's reputation. The court held that the book's content could be interpreted as conveying negative opinions about the plaintiff's character and professional capabilities. The court also ruled that the publication of the book constituted a breach of the plaintiff's privacy rights, as it disclosed personal information without consent. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant's actions amounted to defamation and a breach of privacy. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to cease publication of the book.

Orders