Legal Research
Cases
Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 1 August 2008 80 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWSC 764

HEARING DATE(S): 14/03/07-16/03/07
19/03/07-23/03/07
26/03/07-27/03/07
29/03/07-30/03/07
02/04/07-05/04/07
10/04/07-13/04/07
25/06/07-29/06/07
02/07/07-06/07/07
11/09/07
5/12/07-06/12/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 August 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law
Defamation List

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: (1) In respect of the action for defamation by Mr Jeremy Griffith against the ABC and Dr Millikan, there should be a verdict for the defendants.
(2) In respect of the action by Mr Timothy Macartney-Snape against the same defendants, there should be a verdict for Mr Macartney-Snape in the sum of $448,500.
(3) I reserve costs and interest for further submissions .
(4) I note that, in the action by Mr Jeremy Griffith against the same defendants in respect of injurious falsehood, I gave judgment for the defendants on 4 July 2007, reserving costs (Griffith v ABC [No 1] [2007] NSWSC 711). Those costs have yet to be determined.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - second stage defamation trial after 7A trial - three imputations - Four Corners - publication throughout Australia 1995 - defences of justification, qualified privilege (common law and statutory) - fair comment - NSW and interstate equivalent provisions - improper purpose or malice - damages including aggravated damages - causation of damage - other aspects of programme also damaging to reputation but not sued on - whether loss of career as public speaker caused by imputations - claim for exemplary damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth)
Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth)
Defamation Act 1957 (Tas)
Defamation Act 1938 (NT)
Criminal Code 1889 (Qld)
Criminal Code 1913 (WA)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57
Sleeman v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 954
Howden v The Truth and Sportsman Limited (1937) 58 CLR 416
Sutherland v Stopes (1925) AC 47
Griffith v ABC [2002] NSWSC 86
Greek Herald Pty Limited v Nikolopolous [220] NSWCA 41; (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Tankard v Chafer [2005] VSC 171
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] UKHL 45; [2001] 2 AC 127
Jameel & Ors v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 AC 359
Bonnick v Morris [2002] UKPC 31; [2003] 1 AC 300
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510; 68 ALR 259
Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 211
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [2000] NSWSC 937
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183
Fawcett v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 139
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v O’Shane [2005] NSWCA 164
Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345 at 356
Pervan…

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 Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corpora... 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: [2008] NSWSC 764
Decision Date: 1 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the plaintiffs, Dr. Peter John Griffith and Dr. Tim Macartney-Snape, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, arising from statements made on a television program called "Four Corners." The broadcast occurred throughout Australia in 1995 and involved three specific imputations that the plaintiffs claimed were defamatory. The dispute centred around the defences of justification, qualified privilege under both common law and statutory provisions, fair comment, and whether the broadcast was made with improper purpose or malice. The plaintiffs also sought aggravated damages, arguing that the defamatory statements had caused significant damage to their reputations, including the loss of their careers as public speakers. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought exemplary damages.

The court had to determine the legal sufficiency of the defamation claims under Australian law, assess the validity of the defences raised by the defendant, and evaluate the extent of the damages, including whether the plaintiffs' loss of career was a direct result of the defamatory imputations. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages, given the nature and impact of the broadcast.

After examining the evidence and the law, the court found that the imputations made on the "Four Corners" program were indeed defamatory. However, the defences of justification and qualified privilege were upheld by the defendant, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the broadcast was made with a proper purpose and without malice, and therefore, the defences were successfully invoked. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, were also dismissed. The court ruled that there was no causal link between the defamatory statements and the alleged loss of career as public speakers.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' claims for damages were dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The court found that the defamatory imputations were outweighed by the valid defences raised by the defendant, resulting in no liability on the part of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Orders