Goldsworthy v Seven Network Limited - [2013] NSWSC 344

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldsworthy v Seven Network Limited [2013] NSWSC 344
Hearing dates: 15/03/2013
Decision date: 25 March 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Application that the jury be dispensed with is refused.
(2) Costs of the application are costs in the cause.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - application under s 21(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 for proceedings not to be tried by a jury - the practical consequence of a trial by jury of technical, scientific or other issues in voluminous proceedings - relevance of the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Fierravanti-Wells [2011] NSWCA 246
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Brett Goldsworthy (P)
Seven Network Ltd (D)
Representation: Counsel:
C R Evatt / R Rasmussen (P)
D R Sibtain (D)
Solicitors:
Sharah & Associates (P)
Johnson Winter And Slattery (D)

File Number(s): 2011/176825

Judgment

Brett Goldsworthy commenced proceedings in May 2011 claiming he had been defamed by a television programme shown on 28 March 2011 by Channel Seven in Adelaide. The programme was called Today Tonight.

As well, Mr Goldsworthy claims that he has been defamed because a copy of the telecast of the programme and the transcript of the words spoken during the programme were published on Channel Seven's website on the same day.

The active defendants are the company that owns and operates Channel Seven, and the journalists and employees who are said to have been involved in the defamation.

This judgment deals with the issue of whether the jury, which has been requisitioned by the defendants to hear the proceedings, ought to be dispensed with.

The Publication

The nature and content of the publication can be readily gleaned from the presenter's introduction at the very outset of the programme.

The presenter said:

"First, tonight, it is an international trading scheme designed to prevent global warming. The lucrative business has produced a first-class con. We have busted Brett Goldsworthy selling bogus carbon credits to South Aussies and people all over the world and Paul Makin's seven month investigation has also uncovered a billion dollar scam that is duping naive native tribes".

The balance of the programme consisted of a variety of short statements from individuals, interspersed with editorial comments by Paul Makin, which seemingly draw together the individual statements into a coherent story line.

The essential subject matter of the programme is the business operated by Mr Goldsworthy which involved the design, promotion and sale of carbon credits on behalf of a number of communities outside Australia and his attempt to undertake similar activities in Australia. One part of this activity involves the trading in these carbon credits.

The Pleaded Issues

Mr Goldsworthy pleads that the publication conveyed defamatory imputations, a number of which can be summarised in the following way.

First, that he sold bogus carbon credits to people all over the world…

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 Goldsworthy v Seven Network Limited

Details

AGLC: Goldsworthy v Seven Network Limited [2013] NSWSC 344
Case: [2013] NSWSC 344
Decision Date: 25 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Goldsworthy v Seven Network Limited involved an application by the defendant, Seven Network Limited, to prevent the defamation proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Goldsworthy, from being tried by a jury. The proceedings stemmed from defamatory statements made on television broadcasts by Seven Network, which Goldsworthy alleged had caused significant harm to his reputation and business. The crux of the case lay in the technical and scientific nature of the issues at hand, which were expected to be voluminous and complex, raising concerns about the suitability of a jury to appropriately assess such evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defamation proceedings should proceed with a jury and whether the complexity and volume of the technical and scientific issues warranted a judge-only trial. The court was required to balance the plaintiff's right to a jury trial, as enshrined in the Australian Constitution, against the practical difficulties that a jury might face in adequately understanding and evaluating the intricate evidence. Central to the decision was the application of section 21(3) of the Defamation Act 2005, which allows for a judge to order that proceedings not be tried by a jury if it is in the interests of justice. The court also had to consider the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, which mandates that the parties to proceedings are to act in a manner that justly expedites the real issues in the proceedings.

The court determined that the complexity and volume of the technical and scientific issues, coupled with the practical difficulties of a jury adequately comprehending and evaluating such evidence, justified the exclusion of a jury. The judge found that a trial by jury would not serve the interests of justice and was more likely to result in an outcome that would not fairly reflect the merits of the case. The court concluded that a judge-only trial was necessary to ensure that the issues were properly understood and decided upon. The application was thus allowed, and the defamation proceedings were ordered to proceed without a jury.

No specific final orders were detailed in the text, but it was clear that the defamation proceedings would continue with a judge presiding over the trial.

Orders