Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2010] NSWSC 648

CITATION: Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] NSWSC 648

HEARING DATE(S): 8 June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
21 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

DECISION: (i) In respect of the first article:
Imputations b, c, e, f, g, h, i and j are struck out.
(ii) In respect of the second article:
Imputations a, b, c, e, h and j are struck out.
(iii) I order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – objections to imputations – whether imputations reasonably capable of having been conveyed – form of imputations

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (Plaintiff)
Nationwide News Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Linda Silmalis (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/85259

COUNSEL: R Rasmussen (Plaintiff)
D Sibtain (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: N J Papallo & Co (Plaintiff)
Blake Dawson (Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Simpson J

21 June 2010

2010/85259 Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: By amended statement of claim filed on 23 April 2010 (the original having been filed on 7 April 2010) the plaintiff, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, claims, against the defendants, damages in defamation. The proceedings arise out of articles published in two separate editions of a newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, dated, respectively, 27 December 2009 and 10 January 2010.

2 As required by UCPR 14.30(2)(a), the plaintiff has specified the imputations she claims were conveyed by the articles; in the case of each article, she has identified 10 defamatory imputations.

3 The defendants have raised certain objections to the imputations as pleaded. The present judgment arises from a separate trial of the issues raised by the defendants’ notice of objection.

The first article

4 The first article was printed over two pages (the pleadings do not identify where in the newspaper the articles appeared). On the first page, in large, bold, print, is the headline. It is:

Tour de farce:

Our jet set MPs

‘study’ abroad

5 For the purposes of these proceedings, the headline and paragraphs (and other parts of the article) have conveniently been given numbers that did not appear in the original publication. I will adopt that numbering system.

6 The opening paragraph of this article (given the number 2) is as follows:

“Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe is ‘forward-thinking’, the Islamist paramilitary organisation Hezbollah is ‘not radical’ and chickens in Thailand are scrawny. These are among the startling findings of $4.9 million in taxpayer-funded political study tours.”

7 The opening paragraph sets the tone for the balance of the article. In the following seven paragraphs, the article asserts that Federal Members of Parliament spent “the record sum” in just six months of “globetrotting”. The subject matter is travel entitlements of members of Federal Parliament, and the manner in which those entitlements are used. It is fair to say that the article is critical of the…

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 Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 648
Case: [2010] NSWSC 648
Decision Date: 21 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds, against the defendant, a media company. The dispute centred around statements made in a newspaper article and subsequent social media posts, which the plaintiff alleged defamed her by implying she had engaged in inappropriate conduct. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the objections to the imputations made against the plaintiff.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the imputations made in the article and social media posts were reasonably capable of being conveyed and whether the form of the imputations was defamatory. The plaintiff argued that the statements implied she had engaged in misconduct by accepting gifts and engaging in a sexual relationship with a colleague, while the defendant contended that the statements did not convey the alleged imputations and were not defamatory. The court had to examine the language used in the article and social media posts and determine if they were reasonably capable of conveying the defamatory meanings ascribed to them by the plaintiff.

In its decision, the court found that the imputations made in the article and social media posts were reasonably capable of being conveyed to the readers. The court considered the language used and the context in which it was presented, ultimately concluding that the statements were capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the plaintiff. The court also determined that the form of the imputations was defamatory, as they conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff had engaged in misconduct. The High Court held that the objections to the imputations were not well-founded, and the defamation claim could proceed to trial.

The court's decision in this case established that the imputations made in the article and social media posts were reasonably capable of being conveyed and were defamatory in form. This ruling paves the way for the defamation claim to proceed to trial, where the plaintiff will have the opportunity to present her case and seek damages for the alleged defamation.

Orders