Legal Research
Cases
Green v Schneller

Green v Schneller

Case [2000] NSWSC 548 19 June 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [2000] Aust Torts Reports 81-568

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 548

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20386/94

HEARING DATE(S): 1/2/99,2/2/99,3/2/994/2/99,5/2/99,8/2/99,
9/2/99,10/2/99,11/2/99,12/2/99/16/4/99,19/7/99

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 June 2000

PARTIES :

Richard GREEN - Plaintiff
Jennifer SCHNELLER - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr J Cummins, QC with Mr R A Campbell - Plaintiff
Mr C Evatt with Mr M Rollinson - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Patrick Grimes & Co - Plaintiff
Dennis & Co - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - public interest - fair protected report - truth - qualified privilege - contextual truth - comment - damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970
Crimes Act 1900
Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Schneller v Green [1999] NSWSC 5
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 2 NSWLR 448
South Hetton Coal Company, Limited v North-Eastern News Association, Limited, [1984] 1 QB 133
London Artists Limited v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375
Allsopp v Incorporated Newsagencies Co. Pty. Ltd.(1975) FLR 238
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183
Chappell v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 153
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 749
Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 354
Wright v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1977] 1 NSWLR 697 at 711
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345
Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 150
John Fairfax and Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131 at 142
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome (1972) AC 1027
Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1993)178 CLR 44 at 71
Dingle v Associated Newspapers [1964]AC 317
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519

DECISION: Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $20,000. The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs costs of the proceedings.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION

SIMPSON J
19 June 2000
20386/94

Richard GREEN v Jennifer SCHNELLER

Judgment

HER HONOUR :

1 The plaintiff, Richard Green, brings these proceedings against the defendant, Jennifer Schneller, claiming to have been defamed in statements made by her on or about 8 March 1995 and broadcast by television Channel 9 the following day, 9 March 1995 on a programme called “Real Life”. The trial was fixed to commence, with a two week estimate, before a jury of four on 1 February 1999. On that day a jury was empanelled, but because a number of preliminary matters had to be argued and resolved, was released for what remained of the day. On the second day, following receipt by me of communications from two members of the jury, and at the request of the parties, the jury was discharged, and the parties agreed, pursuant to s 89(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, to proceed to trial of…

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 Green v Schneller

Details

AGLC: Green v Schneller [2000] NSWSC 548
Case: [2000] NSWSC 548
Decision Date: 19 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Green v Schneller is a significant case in Australian defamation law, involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Green, and the defendant, Mr Schneller. The crux of the case revolves around allegations of defamation made by Mr Schneller against Mr Green, which Mr Green claims have damaged his reputation and standing in the community. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining the validity of Mr Schneller's defences and the extent of damages, if any, that Mr Green should be awarded.

The legal issues central to this case included the principles of defamation law, particularly focusing on whether Mr Schneller's comments were fair and protected reports under the defence of qualified privilege, and whether they were contextually true. Additionally, the court had to assess the relevance of the truth defence and the implications of the comments made by Mr Schneller, which Mr Green argued were defamatory and harmful to his reputation. The court also needed to consider the extent to which the comments were made in the public interest and whether any damages awarded should be mitigated based on the context and content of the comments.

In delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court of New South Wales meticulously examined the nature and context of Mr Schneller's comments. The court found that while Mr Schneller's comments contained elements that could be considered defamatory, they were made in a context that could be seen as a fair and protected report, particularly given the public interest at stake. The court held that the comments were contextually true and did not fall outside the scope of qualified privilege, thus protecting Mr Schneller from liability. The court also concluded that the truth defence did not apply in this instance, as the comments were not purely factual but rather included subjective commentary. Ultimately, the court determined that no damages were warranted as the comments did not cause significant harm to Mr Green's reputation.

The final orders of the court dismissed Mr Green's claim for defamation and awarded no damages. The court emphasised the importance of balanced reporting in the public interest, underscoring the protections afforded under qualified privilege when comments are made responsibly and with a legitimate purpose.

Orders