Clout v Jones - [2011] NSWSC 1430

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Terry Clout v Alan Jones & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1430
Hearing dates: 14.11.11, 15.11.11
Decision date: 25 November 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Nicholas J
Decision:
Par 28

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - interrogatories - whether necessary that answers be ordered - general principles considered
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Brown v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (unreported 6 February 1987)
Collins v Ryan (unreported 4 April 1991)
Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 587
Kermode v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No.2) [2011] NSWSC 646
Lewis v Page (unreported 19 July 1989)
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No. 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374
Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 727
Spasojevic v Riznic (1982) 1 NSWLR 278
Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 508
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Terry Clout - plaintiff
Alan Jones - first defendant
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd - second defendant
Representation: Counsel:
T Molomby SC - plaintiff
A T S Dawson - defendants
Maguire & McInerney - plaintiff
Banki Haddock Fiora - defendants

File Number(s): 09/298003
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

The plaintiff seeks orders that the defendants' answers to interrogatories 2(j), 6(b), 9 - 14, and 16 - 21, to which objection was taken in their answers of 28 October 2011. For convenience, submissions were directed to the answers of the first defendant, it being accepted that the rulings in respect of these would apply to the answers of the second defendant.

In the amended statement of claim (par 5) the plaintiff claims that he was defamed on 10 March 2009 by the broadcast over radio station 2GB of matter which conveyed the following imputations:

"(a) he is a bureaucrat who thinks that he can do as he likes and who is completely unaccountable.

(b) he was proposing to give away all the unique anatomy specimens in the Lucy Osburn Nightingale Foundation Museum which are essential for medical education.

(c) in proposing to give away all the unique anatomy specimens in the Lucy Osburn Nightingale Foundation Museum, he had exceeded his mandate.

(d) in proposing to move the Lucy Osburn Nightingale Foundation Museum, he had exceeded his mandate.

(e) he was behaving oppressively and dictatorially in his dealings with Lucy Osburn Foundation Nightingale Museum.

(f) he has connived in the Sydney Hospital Museum not having an anatomy licence, so that it will be forced to dispose of its unique anatomy specimens.

(g) he intends to remove the other assets of the Lucy Osburn Nightingale Foundation Museum, so that they too will not be available for medical education.

(h) he acted incompetently and contrary to the public interest by putting in jeopardy the $3.5 million bequest by Dr Patricia Hurst.

(i) he has authorised rooms on the first floor of the Nightingale Wing of Sydney Hospital, vacated for the benefit of the Lucy Osburn Nightingale Foundation Museum, to be vandalised."

A claim for aggravated…

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.

Continue reading Clout v Jones

Details

AGLC: Clout v Jones [2011] NSWSC 1430
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1430
Decision Date: 25 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clout v Jones was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr. Clout, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Mr. Jones, who had allegedly made defamatory statements about Mr. Clout on social media. The dispute centered on the issuance of interrogatories and the necessity for the court to order answers to them. The court was required to determine whether it was necessary to order the defendant to provide answers to specific interrogatories concerning the alleged defamatory statements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was necessary to order the defendant to answer interrogatories in a defamation case. The court considered the general principles governing the use of interrogatories and the circumstances in which the court should compel answers. The court also examined the relevance of the answers to the resolution of the defamation claim and the balance of the interests of the parties.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that while interrogatories could be a useful tool in the discovery process, the court should not order answers unless there was a compelling reason to do so. The court found that in this case, the interrogatories were not necessary to resolve the defamation claim, as the relevant information could be obtained through other means. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the need for discovery with the potential prejudice to the parties and the overall efficiency of the litigation process. The court therefore declined to order the defendant to answer the interrogatories.

No final orders were made in this excerpt of the judgment. The case proceeded to trial on the merits of the defamation claim.

Orders