Cosco v Hutley (No 2)

The dispute between Cosco and Hutley was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Cosco sought damages for defamation against Hutley, a neighbour, for statements made during a radio interview. The defamatory statements were made by Hutley to a radio journalist, who subsequently broadcast them to the public, leading Cosco to claim for re-publication by the broadcaster. Cosco argued that the statements were defamatory, lacking justification, and that the publication by the broadcaster constituted a re-publication of the defamatory content. The central issue before the court was whether the statements made by Hutley were defamatory, justified as an honest opinion, and whether the broadcaster's re-publication of the interview could be held liable for defamation.

The court examined the nature of the statements and whether they could be considered defamatory. It found that the statements implied a lack of trustworthiness and were defamatory. The court further assessed whether Hutley's statements were protected as an honest opinion, considering the context and the nature of the relationship between the parties. The court held that the statements were not protected as an honest opinion due to the absence of a basis for such an opinion and the presence of contextual imputations that detracted from the plaintiff's character. The court also found the broadcaster liable for re-publishing the defamatory content, as the interview was a significant part of the broadcast and the broadcaster had no reasonable grounds to doubt the truth of the statements.

The court awarded Cosco damages for the defamatory statements, including aggravated damages for the manner and circumstances of the publication. The court held that the broadcaster was liable for re-publishing the defamatory content, as it played a substantial role in disseminating the defamatory material to the public. The court's decision underscored the importance of the context in determining the defamatory nature of statements and the liability of a broadcaster for re-publishing defamatory content. The final orders included damages for defamation, aggravated damages, and a declaration of liability for the broadcaster.