Legal Research
Cases
Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 29 June 2000 53 min read

Contents

On this page

CHAPMAN AND CHAPMAN v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[2000] SASC 146

Full Court: Doyle CJ, Nyland and Lander JJ

DOYLE CJ. In my opinion the appeal should be allowed, and the orders proposed by Lander J should be made. I agree with his reasons for so concluding. There is nothing that I wish to add to those reasons.
NYLAND J: I agree that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons expressed by Lander J. I agree with the orders proposed by him.
LANDER J. The plaintiffs issued their proceedings on 10 March 1998 seeking damages for libel arising out of 22 separate publications over the period March 1992 to December 1997.
The defendant filed and served a r 46.20 notice.
That notice asserted that the Statement of Claim was defective on the following grounds:
“1.In relation to each of the 22 alleged publications pleaded in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs have pleaded only a small portion of the broadcast in which the statements complained of were published. In doing so, the plaintiffs have failed to include all matters containing the true context in which the references to them are understood. The authorities require that the whole of the broadcast be pleaded in the circumstances.”

On 21 April 1998 the plaintiffs filed an amended, more explicit Statement of Claim which responded to the complaint in the r46.20 notice by attaching by way of schedules a transcription of the various broadcasts relied upon for the plaintiffs’ causes of action.
On 16 July 1998 the defendant issued an application seeking orders:
That the whole of the More Explicit Statement of Claim dated 21 April 1998 filed herein be struck out on the grounds appearing in the affidavit in support sworn by George Gretsas on 16 July 1998.
In the alternative, in relation to paragraphs 108 to 113 of the More Explicit Statement of Claim, that summary judgment be entered against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant.

The affidavit which accompanied the application claimed that the whole of the Statement of Claim should be struck out. In the alternative the defendant sought orders that various paragraphs of the Statement of Claim should be struck out for a variety of reasons. First it was claimed that some paragraphs lacked particularity. Next it was claimed that some aspects of the pleading were vexatious. Some others embarrassing. In some cases it was argued that the imputations pleaded did not arise from the words published. In those cases the defendant sought not only the striking out of the pleaded imputations but also the words relied upon for the imputation; i.e. the cause of action. In some cases it was pleaded that the publication did not identify the plaintiffs so as to allow the plaintiffs to maintain their proceedings.
The order sought in the first paragraph of the application was very wide. However it is clear from the affidavit, which supported the application, that the defendant was raising a variety of matters, some which would only give…

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 Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 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: [2000] SASC 146
Decision Date: 29 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the plaintiffs, Tom and Wendy Chapman, sued the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), for libel arising from 22 separate publications over a period of five years. The ABC filed a notice under rule 46.20, claiming that the Statement of Claim was defective. The plaintiffs responded with a more explicit Statement of Claim, attaching transcriptions of the broadcasts. The ABC then sought to strike out various parts of the Statement of Claim, claiming they were vexatious, lacking in particularity, or incapable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings. The Master struck out certain paragraphs, which the ABC appealed. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiffs were granted leave to appeal to the Full Court.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the defamatory imputations pleaded could arise from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words published and whether the pleadings were sufficient to allow the claims to proceed. The Full Court found that many of the pleaded imputations could not arise from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and were therefore struck out. The Court also found that some parts of the pleadings were inadequate and struck those as well. The Court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to address the deficiencies.

The Full Court's decision highlights the importance of pleading defamatory imputations clearly and the need for the pleadings to be sufficient to allow the claims to proceed. The Court also emphasized the objective test for determining whether words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, which requires considering the words in their natural and ordinary meaning and whether reasonable people would understand them in a defamatory sense. The Court's decision also underscores the importance of distinguishing between striking out pleadings and dismissing claims and the need for clarity in applications to avoid confusion.

Orders