Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Limited - [2009] NSWSC 876

CITATION: Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 876

HEARING DATE(S): 6 April 2009

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 6 April 2009

DECISION: Motion rejected.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - practice and procedure - motion for separate trials for questions of defamatory imputations and damages - motion rejected

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005

CASES CITED: Corby v Channel 7 Sydney Pty Limited
Davis v Nationwide News [2008] NSWCCA 693
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic [2007] HCA 28; (2007) 230 CLR 291
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 201 ALR 77

PARTIES: Michelina Greig (Pltf)
WIN Television (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/20207

COUNSEL: T K Tobin QC/E A Cheeseman (Pltf)
B R McClintock SC/M Lynch (Def)

SOLICITORS: Bussoletti Lawyers (Pltf)
Banki Haddock Fiora (Def)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

McCLELLAN CJ at CL

MONDAY 6 APRIL 2009

20207/07 GREIG v WIN TELEVISION NSW PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT – notice of motion

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff brings proceedings against the defendant for defamation. The proceedings have been brought pursuant to the Defamation Act 2005. That Act replaced the 1974 Act which provided for what became known as a 7A trial pursuant to which the jury determined the defamatory imputations if any which arose. Under the 1974 Act the judge determined issues related to the defences and damages.

2 Under the 2005 Act proceedings may be tried by a judge alone or by a judge sitting with a jury. Section 22 of the Act provides for the respective role of the judge and the jury. Section 22(2) provides that the jury is to determine whether the defendant has published defamatory matter about the plaintiff, and, if so, whether any defence raised by the defendant has been established. Subsection (3) then provides that if the jury has found in the plaintiff's favour, the judge is to determine the quantum of any damages.

3 The defendant in the present proceedings by motion seeks an order that there be a separate trial of the questions for the jury from the trial of any issue of damages. There is nothing in the legislation to suggest that by reason of the different questions to be determined by the judge and the jury that the trial should be split so that the evidence in relation to what I will refer to as liability is to be heard separately from evidence in relation to damages.

4 There have been two trials in this Court under the 2005 Act. In the trial of Davis v Nationwide News [2008] NSWCCA 693 the question as to whether or not the evidence in relation to liability should be heard separately from the evidence in relation to damages was considered. However, the defendant in that case decided in the interests of efficiency and appropriate disposition of the trial that it would not object to all of the evidence being heard by…

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 Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Limited 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: [2009] NSWSC 876
Decision Date: 6 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Greig versus WIN Television NSW Pty Limited was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around allegations of defamation made by the plaintiff, Mr Greig, against WIN Television. Mr Greig, a former employee, claimed that defamatory statements made by WIN Television led to his dismissal and damage to his reputation. The central issue before the court was whether separate trials should be held for the determination of the defamatory imputations and the assessment of damages.

The court was required to consider whether it was appropriate to bifurcate the proceedings into two separate trials. One trial would focus solely on identifying the defamatory imputations in the statements made by WIN Television, while the other would address the issue of damages. This approach was sought by the plaintiff, who argued that such a division would streamline the proceedings and potentially expedite the resolution of the case.

In dismissing the motion for separate trials, the court held that such bifurcation was not in the interests of justice. The court reasoned that determining the defamatory imputations and assessing damages were inherently intertwined issues that should be resolved concurrently. By keeping the proceedings unified, the court aimed to ensure a coherent and comprehensive assessment of the defamation claim, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. The court's decision ultimately meant that the defamation claim and the assessment of damages would be addressed in a single trial.

Orders