Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2011] HCATrans 84

In *Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning the liability of Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd for defamatory broadcasts. The dispute arose from television news reports broadcast by Channel Seven which alleged that the respondent, Ms. Manock, had been involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Ms. Manock subsequently sued Channel Seven for defamation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defamatory imputations conveyed by the broadcasts were of such a nature that they were not capable of being proven true, and therefore whether the defence of justification was available to Channel Seven. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the broadcasts, when considered in their entirety, conveyed imputations that were substantially true, or if the imputations were of a kind that could not be proven true.

The High Court, comprising Hayne and Kiefel JJ, reasoned that the defence of justification requires the defendant to prove the truth of the defamatory imputations. In this instance, the Court found that the broadcasts conveyed imputations that were not capable of being proven true. Their Honours applied the principle that for a defence of justification to succeed, the defendant must establish the truth of the sting of the defamatory matter, meaning the core defamatory meaning. If the imputations are such that they cannot be substantiated, the defence will fail.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.