Griffith v ABC

The case of Griffith v ABC involved the plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of a restaurant, suing the defendants for harm to their reputation and feelings. The plaintiffs sought damages for injurious falsehood and deceit. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, ABC, a television network, broadcasted a programme that falsely implicated the plaintiffs in a criminal offence, leading to a loss of customers and damage to their business. The defendants denied these allegations and sought to have the plaintiffs' claims struck out, arguing that they were not justiciable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' claims were justiciable and if the plaintiffs could recover damages for harm to their feelings and reputation, as well as for damage to their business. The court needed to determine if the plaintiffs' claims for injurious falsehood were valid and if they could extend to damages for loss of business. Additionally, the court had to decide if the plaintiffs' concurrent claims in deceit were justiciable.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim for injurious falsehood was justiciable and could extend to damages for loss of business. The court held that the plaintiffs had suffered harm to their reputation and feelings due to the defamatory broadcast by the defendants, and as a result, they were entitled to seek damages for the loss of business that ensued. The court further ruled that the plaintiffs' concurrent claims in deceit were not justiciable because they were not independent causes of action but rather alternative statements of the same cause of action. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for deceit were struck out. The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim for injurious falsehood proceed to trial to determine the extent of the damages they were entitled to claim.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' claims for injurious falsehood were justiciable and could extend to damages for loss of business, while their claims for deceit were not justiciable and were struck out. The case proceeded to trial to determine the damages the plaintiffs were entitled to claim for the harm to their reputation, feelings, and business caused by the defamatory broadcast.