Chau v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3)

The case of Chau v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) involved the plaintiff, Chau, suing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and others for defamation arising from a national broadcast of a television program. The plaintiff alleged that the program conveyed defamatory imputations about him, including that he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, engaged in bribery, and was involved in corrupt schemes. The dispute centred on whether the program conveyed these imputations, the adequacy of disclaimers, and the appropriateness of damages and injunctive relief. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to determine several legal issues. First, whether the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program to convey the imputations of guilt. Second, whether the plaintiff, who did not speak or understand English and did not see the program, could recover compensatory damages for hurt feelings based on a translation he read later. Third, whether the previous defamation proceedings and outcomes mitigated any damage caused by the broadcast in question. Fourth, whether the conduct of the respondents, including maintaining a truth defence and failing to apologise, warranted aggravated damages. Lastly, the court had to consider whether an injunction was appropriate to restrain the publication of the program online, given the public interest and the availability of damages as a remedy.

The court found that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program to convey the defamatory imputations, despite the disclaimers. The court held that the plaintiff could recover compensatory damages for hurt feelings, even though he did not see the program, based on the translation he read. The court also found that the previous defamation proceedings did not sufficiently mitigate the damage caused by the latest broadcast. Regarding aggravated damages, the court found the conduct of the respondents improper, unjustifiable, and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the court granted an injunction to restrain the respondents from conveying the defamatory imputations found to have been conveyed in the program.

The final orders of the court included a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $590,000, an injunction restraining the respondents from conveying the defamatory imputations, and an order for the respondents to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The court also set a timeline for any further applications regarding the injunction and costs.