Giani v Queensland Television Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 40 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Giani v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2015] QDC 286

PARTIES:

PETER GIANI
(Plaintiff)

AND

QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LTD ACN: 009 674 373
(First Defendant)

AND

TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD ACN: 001 549 560
(Second Defendant)

AND

GENERAL TELEVISION CORPORATION PROPRIETARY LTD ACN: 004 330 036
(Third Defendant)

AND

NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN: 008 685 407
(Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3579/15

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2015

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

Application to strike out paragraphs [8] and [14], and the particulars numbered 1 to 4, of the further amended defence filed on 13 October 2015 allowed.  Parties to be heard as to the form of the orders and directions sought, and as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION -  Application to strike out contextual truth defence – Whether the contextual imputation capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of by the plaintiff  – Whether the contextual imputation amounts to a general charge against the character of the plaintiff, such as to permit reliance upon post-publication conduct, to establish the substantial truth of the imputation

DEFAMATION - Application to strike out plea in mitigation of damages – Whether evidence of post-publication conduct, described in terms of the plaintiff having so acted as to warrant being charged by police for allegedly committing a criminal offence, admissible in mitigation of damages – Whether evidence relevant to the same sector of the plaintiff’s reputation capable of being harmed by the matter complained of – Whether evidence of general bad reputation, or evidence of particular acts of misconduct

Defamation Act 1995 (Qld) s 26
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 162, 171

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Hodgkinson [2005] NSWCA 190
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) 278 ALR 232
Fairfax Media Publications v King [2015] NSWCA 172
Fairfax Media Publications v Zeccola [2015] NSWCA 329
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2010) 76 NSWLR 299
Hansen v The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd (1988) Aust Torts Reports ¶80-188
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
Maisel v Financial Times Ltd [1915] 3 KB 336
Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer [2012] 2 Qd R 139
State of New South Wales v Deren (1999) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-502

Gatley on Libel and Slander, 12th ed (2013), Sweet & Maxwell

COUNSEL:

A Newman for the Plaintiff / Applicant

RJ Anderson for the Defendants / Respondents

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman for the Plaintiff / Applicant

Mark O’Brien Lawyers for the Defendants / Respondents

Introduction – nature of the application

  1. By this proceeding, the plaintiff, who is the manager of a tattoo parlour called “Exit 79”, is claiming damages against the defendants for alleged defamation arising out of a segment of the television program “A Current Affair” broadcast on 24 February 2014.

  2. Although further reference will…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Giani v Queensland Television 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
[2015] QDC 286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the case were Giani, the plaintiff, and Queensland Television Ltd, the defendant. The dispute pertained to defamation allegations arising from statements made by the defendant on their television news program, which the plaintiff claimed were defamatory. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought to strike out specific parts of the defendant’s defence, arguing they were not legally sufficient. The defendant contended that the defences raised were appropriate and should be allowed to proceed.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's contextual truth defence was capable of being established and whether it amounted to a general charge against the plaintiff's character, permitting reliance on post-publication conduct. Additionally, the court needed to decide if evidence of the plaintiff's post-publication conduct, which involved alleged criminal activity, was admissible in mitigation of damages. The admissibility hinged on whether this evidence related to the same sector of the plaintiff’s reputation that was allegedly harmed by the defamatory statements.

The court held that the defendant's contextual truth defence did not convey a contextual imputation capable of being established as substantially true. The court found that the contextual imputation was not sufficiently general to warrant reliance on post-publication conduct. Furthermore, the court ruled that the evidence of the plaintiff's post-publication conduct was not admissible as it pertained to a different sector of the plaintiff's reputation and was not relevant to the defamation claim. Consequently, the court allowed the application to strike out certain paragraphs of the defendant’s defence and ordered the parties to discuss the form of orders and directions sought, as well as costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to strike out paragraphs [8] and [14], and the particulars numbered 1 to 4, of the further amended defence filed on 13 October 2015 allowed. Parties to be heard as to the form of the orders and directions sought, and as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.