Goold v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2000] NSWSC 133

CITATION: Goold & Anor v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 133

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 21311/96

HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 9 March 2000

PARTIES :

Doug Goold (First Plaintiff)
Roslyn Goold (Second Plaintiff)
Newcastle Newspapers Pty Limited (ACN 000 003 967) (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : A.A. Henskens (Plaintiffs)
D.A. Caspersonn (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Baker Love (Plaintiffs)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act

CASES CITED: Palmer v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1985) 5 NSWLR 727
Sims v Wran (1984) 1 NSWLR 317
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Carney & Ors v Mack (unreported, Levine J, 16 December 1998)

DECISION: See para 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Thursday 9 March 2000

21311/96 DOUG GOOLD & ANOR v NEWCASTLE NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek damages from the defendant, claiming to have been defamed in an article published in the Newcastle Herald on 22 August 1996. That articles forms annexure A to the statement of claim and it is unnecessary to set out its content in this judgment.
2   The defendant has filed a defence in which it denies that the article in question is capable of bearing, or is understood in the relevant sense to bear, the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim. Additionally, the defendant has pleaded qualified privilege, comment and the defence arising under s 13 of the Defamation Act. In their reply, the plaintiffs have, inter alia, pleaded malice.
3   Consent orders were made concerning interrogatories on 9 April 1999, and interrogatories have been administered and certain of these have been answered. However a dispute has arisen as to whether the defendant ought to be required to answer certain outstanding interrogatories and I entertained argument on those interrogatories on Friday last, 3 March 2000. The interrogatories in question are five in number and it will be necessary to consider each interrogatory in turn.
4   Firstly however, I set out the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs:

By the first plaintiff:

“(a) The First Plaintiff attempted to defraud the credit card provider ‘Mastercard’ by avoiding a debt which he knew to have been incurred by him at a brothel called the ‘One One One Coffee’;

(b) That the First Plaintiff frequented a brothel called the ‘One One One Coffee’ on a large scale;

(c) That the First Plaintiff is a sexual deviant;

(d) That the First Plaintiff has sexual relations with prostitutes at the brothel called ‘One One One Coffee’ contrary to the moral obligations of his marriage;

(e) That the First Plaintiff is dishonest in that he concealed his adulterous behaviour with prostitutes at the brothel called the ‘One One One Coffee’ from his wife;

(f) That the First Plaintiff is a hypocrite in that he denied to Mr Corbett (a journalist employed by the Defendant), to a representative of the brothel and to his…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goold v Newcastle Newspapers Pty 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: [2000] NSWSC 133
Decision Date: 9 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Doug Goold and Roslyn Goold, the plaintiffs, sought damages against Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd, the defendant, for defamation they claimed was published in an article in the Newcastle Herald on 22 August 1996. The defendant denied the imputations and pleaded qualified privilege, comment, and a defence under s 13 of the Defamation Act. The plaintiffs pleaded malice in their reply. The case focused on the interpretation and relevance of certain interrogatories filed in the proceedings.

The court had to decide whether certain interrogatories filed by the plaintiffs were relevant and necessary for the case. Specifically, the interrogatories in question asked the defendant to disclose the meanings it intended to convey through the publication, whether it considered the possibility of certain defamatory meanings, and whether it took steps to prevent the publication from being understood in a defamatory way. The defendant objected to answering these interrogatories on the grounds that they were vexatious and oppressive and not relevant to the case.

The court considered the relevance of the interrogatories to the defence of qualified privilege and the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication. While acknowledging the importance of the defendant's state of mind, the court found that the interrogatories were not necessary since the defendant had already provided detailed information about the information it had at the time of publication. The court also rejected the argument that the interrogatories were vexatious and oppressive, holding that they were relevant to the issue of the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. Therefore, the court ordered the defendant to answer interrogatories 10, 11, 24, and 25, but not interrogatory 9.

The court ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause, given that the plaintiffs were successful on four of the five interrogatories but the hearing time was largely spent on interrogatory 9, on which they were not successful. This decision ensured that the proceedings were fairly balanced in terms of costs allocation.

Orders