Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 5)

In the case of Edwards v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 5), the plaintiff, Ms Edwards, a barrister, sought damages for defamation against the defendants, Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, a television broadcasting company. The dispute arose from a television program broadcast on "A Current Affair" and related articles concerning the ownership of a dog named Oscar, an Instagram celebrity. Ms Edwards alleged that the publications defamed her by implying she stole the dog and exploited him for financial gain, as well as delaying related court proceedings. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the defamatory imputations were indeed conveyed by the publications, whether they were defamatory, whether they were substantially true, and the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded.

The court examined whether the defamatory imputations were conveyed by the television broadcasts and articles. It found that most of the imputations, such as Ms Edwards stealing Oscar and exploiting him for financial benefit, were indeed carried by the publications. The court also considered whether these imputations were defamatory and concluded that they were. Moving on to the defence of justification, the court found that Ms Edwards did not steal Oscar as she obtained possession through deception, and she did not have an honest claim of right. The defence of contextual truth was rejected as the contextual imputations were not substantially true, and any damage caused by them would not have overwhelmed the damage caused by the other imputations.

The court awarded Ms Edwards compensatory and aggravated damages, noting that the publications damaged her reputation and caused her hurt and distress. The court considered that the pre-publication conduct of Ms Edwards could be taken into account when assessing the appropriate amount of aggravated damages. However, the disreputable conduct of Ms Edwards resulted in a mitigation of the damages awarded. The final orders included judgment in favour of Ms Edwards in the sum of $150,000, with prejudgment interest, and further orders to be determined at a case management hearing.