Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd - [2007] NSWSC 1118

CITATION: Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1118

HEARING DATE(S): 10 September 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: Para 18.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - pleadings - imputions of "reasonable suspicion" - specificity of imputations - whether imputations should be struck out as bad in form

LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005) Pt 14 r 14.28, r 14.30

CASES CITED: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Boadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Evans v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 429
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
King v Telegraph Group Ltd (2004) EWCA Civ 613; (2005) 1 WLR 2282
Purcell & Anor v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia Pty Ltd & Ors (2002) NSWSC 557
Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1983] 2 NSWLR 669
Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241
Whelan v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1998) 12 NSWLR 148

PARTIES: Michelina Greig - Plaintiff
WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20207/07

COUNSEL: E Cheeseman - Plaintiff
M Lynch - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Bussoletti Lawyers - Plaintiff
Banki Haddock Fiora - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

Tuesday 9 October 2007

20207/07 Michelina Greig v WIN Television Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These reasons concern the defendant’s application under Pt 14 r 14.28(1)(b) to have struck out the imputations pleaded in paras 5(c) and (e), and 7(c) and (e), of the statement of claim on the ground that each is bad in form. There was no issue as to capacity.

2 Imputations 5(c) and 7(c) are pleaded in the following terms:

“(c) The plaintiff conducted herself in such a way so as to give rise to the reasonable suspicion that in handling a planned councillor technology upgrade for the Shellharbour City Council she had acted corruptly in accepting Blackberry devices from private communications representatives”

3 Imputations 5(e) and 7(e) are pleaded in the following terms:

4 These imputations are claimed to have been conveyed by the natural and ordinary meaning of the matter published by the defendant on 28 March 2007 in a television news programme and on its internet site, which was in the following terms:

“Questions are being raised at Shellharbour City Council, over Deputy Mayor Michelle Greig’s handling of planned councillor technology upgrade, while filling in for Mayor David Hamilton.

The project involved updating councillor communication technology requirements.

WIN News understands Ms Greig had a meeting with private communication representatives and later received two Blackberry devices.

It’s believed the technology upgrade proposal had been listed on Council’s business papers for a vote before council, but was taken off by General Manager Brian Weir and referred to…

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 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: [2007] NSWSC 1118
Decision Date: 9 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Greig and WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd. The dispute was centred around defamation, specifically regarding the imputations of "reasonable suspicion" made by WIN Television. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the imputations were specific enough and if they should be struck out as being bad in form. The court's reasoning was that the imputations were vague and ambiguous, lacking the necessary specificity to clearly convey the defamatory content. The court found that the imputations should be struck out due to their poor form, as they did not meet the necessary standards of clarity and precision required in defamation cases. The final orders were that the imputations in question were struck out, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Orders