CITATION: Buck & Ors v Jones & Ors [2002] NSWCA 8 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40503/00 HEARING DATE(S): 5 and 6 December 2001 JUDGMENT DATE:
6 February 2002PARTIES :
Mary Lou Buck - First Appellant
Manul Ritchie - Second Appellant
Colin Campbell - Third Appellant
Cindy Johnson - Fourth Appellant
Alan Jones - First Respondent
Radio Station 2UE Pty Ltd - Second Respondent
Anthony Carter - Third RespondentJUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Giles JA at 2; Grove J at 76
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :SC 20217/97 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Barr J
COUNSEL: T E F Hughes QC & P W Gray - Appellants
G O'L Reynolds & R G McHugh - First and Second Respondents
G McGrath - Third RespondentSOLICITORS: Chalk & Fitzgerald - Appellants
Bush Burke & Co - First and Second Respondents
Hunt and Hunt - Third RespondentCATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - talkback radio broadcast - caller made allegedly defamatory statement - witness said what meaning she attached to it - whether counsel impermissably used the evidence in address - whether trial judge adequately directed jury that evidence could not be used to determine what was conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener - jury found imputation conveyed by matter published by caller but not by matter published by broadcaster - whether findings necessarily inconsistent - whether assuming one finding the other was perverse - whether court could substitute finding or new trial required. D. CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 68 ALR 259;
Balenzuela v De Gail (1959) 101 CLR 226;
Calin v Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 33;
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44;
Cinevest Ltd v Yirandi Productions Ltd (2001) NSWCA 68;
Dempster v Coates (CA, 11 April 1990, unreported)
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348;
Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL v Sungravure Pty Ltd (1974) 1 NSWLR 323;
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Heggie [2001] NSWCA 257;
Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1996) 186 CLR;
Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1973) 1 NSWLR 43.DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) Set aside the jury's answers to question 4(b) and 12(b) and order that there be a new trial as between the fourth plaintiff and the defendants in respect of imputation 6(b); (3) As to costs - (i) The third and fourth appellants pay the respondents' costs thrown away and occasioned by the amendment to the notice of appeal. (ii) The third appellant pay the respondents' costs of his appeal. (iii) The respondents pay the fourth appellant's costs of her appeal. (iv) Set aside the order that the fourth appellant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the trial, the costs as between those parties to be as ordered by the judge before whom the new trial is conducted. (v) The first and second respondents have a certificate…
Continue reading Buck v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Buck v Jones [2002] NSWCA 8
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 8
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Buck v Jones* concerned a defamation action arising from a talkback radio broadcast. The plaintiffs alleged that a statement made by a caller, broadcast by the radio station, conveyed defamatory imputations about them. A witness testified as to the meaning she attached to the statement. The central dispute revolved around whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury regarding the use of this witness's evidence, specifically whether it could be used to determine the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener, and whether the jury's findings were inconsistent.
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether counsel had impermissibly used the witness's evidence in their address to the jury. Secondly, whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure they understood that the witness's evidence could not be determinative of the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener. Thirdly, the court had to consider whether the jury's findings, which found that the imputation was conveyed by the matter published by the caller but not by the matter published by the broadcaster, were necessarily inconsistent. Finally, the court had to decide whether, assuming one finding to be correct, the other finding was perverse, and consequently, whether the court could substitute its own finding or if a new trial was required.
The court reasoned that the jury's findings were not necessarily inconsistent, but that there had been an error in relation to the jury's answers concerning the imputation conveyed by the broadcaster. The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the jury's answers to specific questions and ordering a new trial between the fourth plaintiff and the defendants concerning a particular imputation. The court also made detailed orders regarding costs, including that the third and fourth appellants pay certain costs, the third appellant pay the respondents' costs of his appeal, and the respondents pay the fourth appellant's costs of her appeal. The order for the fourth appellant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the trial was set aside, with those costs to be determined by the judge presiding over the new trial. The first and second respondents were granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act, subject to qualification.
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether counsel had impermissibly used the witness's evidence in their address to the jury. Secondly, whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure they understood that the witness's evidence could not be determinative of the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener. Thirdly, the court had to consider whether the jury's findings, which found that the imputation was conveyed by the matter published by the caller but not by the matter published by the broadcaster, were necessarily inconsistent. Finally, the court had to decide whether, assuming one finding to be correct, the other finding was perverse, and consequently, whether the court could substitute its own finding or if a new trial was required.
The court reasoned that the jury's findings were not necessarily inconsistent, but that there had been an error in relation to the jury's answers concerning the imputation conveyed by the broadcaster. The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the jury's answers to specific questions and ordering a new trial between the fourth plaintiff and the defendants concerning a particular imputation. The court also made detailed orders regarding costs, including that the third and fourth appellants pay certain costs, the third appellant pay the respondents' costs of his appeal, and the respondents pay the fourth appellant's costs of her appeal. The order for the fourth appellant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the trial was set aside, with those costs to be determined by the judge presiding over the new trial. The first and second respondents were granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act, subject to qualification.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) Set aside the jury's answers to question 4(b) and 12(b) and order that there be a new trial as between the fourth plaintiff and the defendants in respect of imputation 6(b); (3) As to costs - (i) The third and fourth appellants pay the respondents' costs thrown away and occasioned by the amendment to the notice of appeal. (ii) The third appellant pay the respondents' costs of his appeal. (iii) The respondents pay the fourth appellant's costs of her appeal. (iv) Set aside the order that the fourth appellant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the trial, the costs as between those parties to be as ordered by the judge before whom the new trial is conducted. (v) The first and second respondents have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if qualified.
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.