Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2013] NSWSC 750

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [2013] NSWSC 750
Hearing dates: 6 June 2013
Decision date: 06 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Summons dismissed.

Catchwords: DECLARATORY RELIEF - Costs - assessment process - discretion to refuse declaratory relief - availability of statutory mechanism of review and appeal - whether costs assessor can and should determine complex issues of fact and law.
Legislation Cited: - Legal Profession Act 1987
- Legal Profession Act 2004
- Supreme Court Act 1970
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: - Ackroyd v Whitehouse (Director of National Parks & Wildlife Service) (1985) 2 NSWLR 239
- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; 170 CLR 321
- Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hattersley [2001] NSWSC 60; 51 NSWLR 333
- Currabubula Holdings Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [2000] NSWSC 232
- Dalgety Wine Estates Pty Ltd v Rizzon (1979) 141 CLR 552
- Graham v Aluma-Lite Pty Ltd (Court of Appeal, 25 March 1997, unreported)
- Griffith & Macartney-Snape v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWSC 764
- Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2010] NSWCA 257
- Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2011] HCATrans 98
- Wentworth v Rogers [1999] NSWCA 403
- Wentworth v Rogers [2006] NSWCA 145; 66 NSWLR 474
Texts Cited: Aronson, Dyer & Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 3rd ed (2004) Lawbook at 753
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jeremy Norman Griffith (Plaintiff)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (First Defendant)
David Millikan (Second Defendant)
John Bartos (Third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
K. Smark SC, Ms M. Castle (Plaintiff)
B.W. Walker SC, M.J. Lewis (First and Second Defendants)
Submitting appearance (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Watson Mangioni (Plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie (First and Second Defendants)
I.V. Knight, Crown Solicitor (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/122052

Ex tempore Judgment

On 19 April 2013 the plaintiff, Jeremy Griffith, filed a summons in this Court seeking declaratory relief. The first defendant to the summons was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ("ABC") and the second defendant was Dr David Millikan. Dr Millikan is a journalist. As I will explain, Mr Griffith unsuccessfully sued the ABC and Dr Millikan for defamation. As a consequence he incurred a series of costs orders. The third defendant, Mr John Bartos, is a costs assessor appointed under the Legal Profession Act 2004 ("the Act"). He has filed a submitting appearance.

By notice of motion filed 14 May 2013, the ABC and Dr Millikan seek the summary dismissal of Mr Griffith's proceedings. The motion seeks to invoke the Court's power under r 30.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction. As the argument developed, it was clear that the basis for dismissal is the discretion this Court has to dismiss proceedings seeking purely discretionary relief.

Background

On 24 April 1995, the ABC's Four Corners program broadcast a documentary produced by Dr Millikan concerning, inter alia, Mr Griffith. Mr Griffith and another person,…

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 v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 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: [2013] NSWSC 750
Decision Date: 06 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the applicant sought declaratory relief against the respondent in relation to certain broadcasting content. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to declaratory relief and whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse such relief, given the availability of statutory mechanisms for review and appeal. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a costs assessor had the authority and should exercise the power to resolve complex issues of fact and law.

The court held that the discretion to refuse declaratory relief is not an absolute right but rather a consideration of the overall circumstances, including the availability of alternative legal remedies. The court found that the existence of statutory mechanisms for review and appeal was a significant factor in determining whether declaratory relief should be granted. Furthermore, the court held that a costs assessor does not possess the jurisdiction to determine complex issues of fact and law. Instead, such matters are within the purview of the court itself, which has the appropriate powers, procedures, and expertise to address these issues.

Ultimately, the court found that the applicant was not entitled to declaratory relief, as the statutory mechanisms for review and appeal provided a sufficient remedy. The court also held that the costs assessor did not have the authority to determine complex issues of fact and law, and that such matters should be resolved by the court. The final orders of the court included a refusal of the application for declaratory relief and a direction that the costs assessment process be conducted in accordance with the relevant legal principles and procedures.

Orders