Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 Judgment No. D151
Case
•
[1999] SADC 151
•30 November 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 Judgment No. D151 [1999] SADC 151
[1999] SADC 151
30 November 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Georgeff v SA Telecasters Ltd No. DCCIV-97-1485 involved a claim for damages for libel brought by Tony Georgeff against SA Telecasters Ltd, operator of Channel 7. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had broadcast defamatory material about him in TV promotions, radio advertisements, and a TV story. The court found that the TV promotions, radio advertisements, and certain parts of the TV story contained defamatory meanings about the plaintiff, but the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action in respect of other parts of the TV story. The court awarded the plaintiff $15,010 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in exemplary damages, for a total of $16,250 plus interest.
The court found that the TV promotions and radio advertisements contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had been an irresponsible father, had deliberately failed to pay reasonable maintenance for his children, and had wrongfully manipulated the child support system to avoid paying proper maintenance. The court also found that parts of the TV story contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequately for his children, had concealed his true earnings to avoid child support obligations, and had committed breaches of his child support obligations. However, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action in respect of other parts of the TV story.
The court found that the defendant had failed to justify most of the defamatory meanings it published about the plaintiff. While the defendant argued that the publications were true or constituted fair comment on matters of public interest, the court found that the publications contained numerous falsehoods and were lacking in bona fides. The court also found that the defendant had acted recklessly and with conscious disregard for the plaintiff's rights in publishing the defamatory material. Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial damages for the actionable libels.
The court found that the TV promotions and radio advertisements contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had been an irresponsible father, had deliberately failed to pay reasonable maintenance for his children, and had wrongfully manipulated the child support system to avoid paying proper maintenance. The court also found that parts of the TV story contained defamatory meanings that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequately for his children, had concealed his true earnings to avoid child support obligations, and had committed breaches of his child support obligations. However, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action in respect of other parts of the TV story.
The court found that the defendant had failed to justify most of the defamatory meanings it published about the plaintiff. While the defendant argued that the publications were true or constituted fair comment on matters of public interest, the court found that the publications contained numerous falsehoods and were lacking in bona fides. The court also found that the defendant had acted recklessly and with conscious disregard for the plaintiff's rights in publishing the defamatory material. Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial damages for the actionable libels.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Justification
-
Aggravated Damages
-
Exemplary Damages
-
Trespass to Land
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Coull v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NTSC 47
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Coull v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2007] NTSC 47
C v L & ORS
[2005] SASC 315
Coull v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2007] NTSC 47
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick
[2002] HCA 56
R v H, ML
[2006] SASC 240