Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd - [2009] NSWSC 1047

CITATION: Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] NSWSC 1047

HEARING DATE(S): 28 August 2009, 3 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 October 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: 1. The motion is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs.

CATCHWORDS: COSTS - interest on costs after judgment

LEGISLATION CITED: Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic)
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Defamation Act 1974
Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED: Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] NSWSC 292
Farkas v Northcity Financial Services Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1036
Grogan v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd and Anor [2000] NSWSC 1101
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126
Lolomanaia v RTA [2002] NSWSC 918

PARTIES: John Dowling Coates (Plaintiff)
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (1st Defendant)
Alan Jones (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2004/20443

COUNSEL: G Lucarelli (Plaintiff)
ATS Dawson (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Kennedys (Plaintiff)
Banki Haddock Fiora (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

FULLERTON J

1 OCTOBER 2009

2004/20443 JOHN DOWLING COATES v HARBOUR RADIO PTY LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 29 May 2009 the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendants pay interest on costs pursuant to s 101(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.

2 Section 101(4) provides:

“The court may order that interest is to be paid on any amount payable under an order for the payment of costs.”

The primary proceedings

3 In the primary proceedings the plaintiff successfully sued Mr Jones and Harbour Radio Pty Limited in defamation in respect of a number of imputations which he claimed were conveyed when Mr Jones broadcast his views concerning certain events that occurred during and immediately following the rowing final of the Women's Eights in the 2004 Olympic Games. At the time of the broadcast the plaintiff was the President of the Australian Olympic Committee (“the AOC”) and a member of the Executive of the Australian Olympic Committee Inc (“AOC Inc”), an incorporated association under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic).

4 In a trial conducted under s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974, a jury found that the following imputations had been conveyed:

As to the first broadcast

As to the second broadcast

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 Coates v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd 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: [2009] NSWSC 1047
Decision Date: 1 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Coates, the plaintiff, and Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute arose from a legal action initiated by Coates against Harbour Radio, seeking compensation for alleged defamation. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. Coates claimed that Harbour Radio had defamed him through statements made during a radio broadcast, resulting in damage to his reputation and financial loss. Harbour Radio, on the other hand, denied the allegations and argued that the statements made were fair and truthful, protected by freedom of speech and expression.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Harbour Radio's statements constituted defamation and, if so, the extent of the damages owed to Coates. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate costs order, including any interest on costs after judgment. The court examined the nature and context of the statements, the truth of the allegations, and the impact on Coates' reputation. Furthermore, the court considered the principles of proportionality and fairness in awarding costs to the prevailing party.

In its decision, the court found that Harbour Radio's statements did indeed constitute defamation, as they were false and had caused harm to Coates' reputation. The court awarded Coates damages for the defamation. Regarding the costs, the court ruled that interest on costs should be payable after judgment. The court reasoned that the defendant's conduct in the proceedings had been unreasonable and vexatious, justifying the imposition of interest on costs as a deterrent. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in cost awards and noted that the interest should be calculated from the date of the judgment until the date of payment.

The final orders included a determination of liability in favour of Coates, an award of damages, and an order for interest on costs to be paid by Harbour Radio to Coates. The court's decision underscored the significance of protecting individuals from defamatory statements and the need for fair and reasonable cost awards in legal proceedings.

Orders