Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read

Reported Decision:

 (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-675

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: CHANNEL SEVEN SYDNEY PTY LTD v PARRAS & ORS [2002] NSWCA 202
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40306/01
HEARING DATE(S): 5 April 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
1 July 2002

PARTIES :
CHANNEL SEVEN SYDNEY PTY LTD v Colin Peter PARRAS & 2 Ors
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Handley JA at 80; Ipp AJA at 81
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		SC 20149/00
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 Simpson J
COUNSEL: Appellant: R R Stitt QC/ M Lynch
Respondent: B McClintock SC/ S A Kerr
SOLICITORS: Appellant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Respondent: Back Schwartz Vaughan
CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - imputations - whether jury's findings on whether the imputations were conveyed were open - identification - plaintiffs not identified by name or title - link between publication and plaintiff - whether necessary to have knowledge of corporate plaintiff's actual name - business names - substance of identification - co-plaintiffs giving evidence of identification. (D).
LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974, s 7A
CASES CITED:
 Abbott v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1987) Aust Torts Rep 80-138
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 30
Consolidated Trust Co Ltd v Browne (1948) 49 SR(NSW) 86
Cross v Denley (1952) 52 SR(NSW) 112
Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle & Journal Limited [1977] 1 WLR 651
Godhard v James Inglis & Co Ltd (1905) 2 CLR 78
Henry v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 474
Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 2 KB 507
Knupffer v London Express Newspapers [1944] AC 116
Kruse v Lindner (1978) 45 FLR 412
Mann v Medical Centre Pty Ltd (1991) 105 FLR 419
McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd (2001) 51 NSWLR 399
Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattras [1972] AC 153
Vlasic v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1976) 9 ACTR 1
DECISION: 1. Appeal upheld in part.; 2. Set aside the determinations of the jury which held that the matter complained of conveyed imputation (a).; 3. Respondents to pay one third of the appellant's costs and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified.




                          CA 40306/2001
                          SC 20149/2000

                          MASON P
                          HANDLEY JA
                          IPP AJA

                          Monday 1 July 2002
CHANNEL SEVEN SYDNEY PTY LTD v Colin PARRAS & Ors
JUDGMENT


      Three plaintiffs sued Channel 7 for damages for defamation arising out of a news telecast in January 2000. The third plaintiff was a corporation conducting the business of a hotel and bar at Potts Point, and the other two plaintiffs…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras 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
[2002] NSWCA 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a jury verdict in favour of the respondents, Mr and Mrs Parras, in a defamation proceeding. The dispute concerned publications by the appellant that the respondents alleged conveyed defamatory imputations about them.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the jury's findings that the publications conveyed specific defamatory imputations were open to them on the evidence, and whether the respondents had been sufficiently identified in the publications. The appellant argued that the respondents were not identified by name or title, and that the jury's conclusion on identification was therefore not open.

The Court of Appeal found that while the jury's finding that the publications conveyed imputation (a) was not open on the evidence, the jury's findings on other imputations and on the issue of identification were open. The Court reasoned that identification does not require a plaintiff to be named explicitly, but rather depends on whether the publication, when read by ordinary reasonable persons, would lead them to conclude that the plaintiff was the person referred to. The evidence of the respondents themselves, testifying to their identification by others, was considered relevant to this assessment.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in part, setting aside the jury's determinations that the matter complained of conveyed imputation (a). The respondents were ordered to pay one third of the appellant's costs and were granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, provided they qualified.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal upheld in part.; 2. Set aside the determinations of the jury which held that the matter complained of conveyed imputation (a).; 3. Respondents to pay one third of the appellant's costs and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 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.