Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd and Mr. Manock were the parties in this matter before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the extent of a duty of care owed by a television broadcaster to a person who was the subject of a television program. Mr. Manock alleged that Channel Seven owed him a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the program, which concerned his past criminal conduct, was not broadcast in a manner that would cause him foreseeable harm.

The High Court was required to determine whether a duty of care, as alleged by Mr. Manock, existed in Australian law. Specifically, the court considered whether the existing principles of negligence, particularly in relation to the duty of care owed by media organisations, extended to encompass the circumstances presented. The central question was whether the broadcaster's conduct in producing and broadcasting the program, which allegedly caused Mr. Manock psychiatric injury, fell within the scope of a legally recognised duty of care.

The High Court ultimately held that no such duty of care was owed by Channel Seven to Mr. Manock. The court reasoned that imposing a duty of care on broadcasters to avoid causing foreseeable psychiatric harm to individuals featured in news or current affairs reporting would unduly fetter freedom of expression and the public's right to information. The judges emphasised that the law already provided remedies for defamation and other specific torts, and that extending the tort of negligence in this manner was not warranted. The court found that the broadcast, while potentially distressing, did not fall within the established categories where a duty of care to avoid psychiatric harm is recognised.