Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2003] NSWSC 298

CITATION: GRIFFITH & ORS v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION & ORS [2003] NSWSC 298 revised - 15/04/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 9 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: Issues of republication are not for the jury

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - issues for jury - s7A Defamation Act 1974 - issues of fact in respect of republication not for jury

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 s7A

CASES CITED: Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJ QB 231
Williams v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd, unreported, 20 November 1991; BC9101414

PARTIES :

JEREMY NORMAN GRIFFITH
(First plaintiff)
FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY'S ADULTHOD
(ACN 003 930 023)
(Second plaintiff)
TIMOTHY JOHN MCACARTNEY-SNAPE
(Third plaintiff)
SAMUEL CHARLES BELFIELD
(Fourth plaintiff)
JOHN CAMERON BIGGS
(Fifth Plaintiff)
SUSAN JANE ARMSTRONG
(Seventh plaintiff)
BRONWYN GLENIS FITZGERALD
(Eighth plaintiff)
HEULWEN MARY JONES
(Ninth plaintiff)
STACEY ANNE RODGER
(Tenth plaintiff)
v
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(First defendant)
DAVID MILLIKAN
(Second defendant)
LEWIS ROBINS
(Third defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20300 OF 2001

COUNSEL:
K Smark
(Plaintiffs)
B Walker SC / R Glasson
(First and second defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Schweizer & Co
(Plaintiffs)
Baker & McKenzie
(First and second defendants)

Ex tempore - revised
[2003] NSWSC 298

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

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 9 APRIL 2003

20300 OF 2001

JEREMY NORMAN GRIFFITH
(First plaintiff)

FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY’S ADULTHOD
(ACN 003 930 023)
(Second plaintiff)

TIMOTHY JOHN MCACARTNEY-SNAPE
(Third plaintiff)

SAMUEL CHARLES BELFIELD
(Fourth plaintiff)

JOHN CAMERON BIGGS
(Fifth Plaintiff)

SUSAN JANE ARMSTRONG
(Seventh plaintiff)

BRONWYN GLENIS FITZGERALD
(Eighth plaintiff)

HEULWEN MARY JONES
(Ninth plaintiff)

STACEY ANNE RODGER
(Tenth plaintiff)

v

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(First defendant)

DAVID MILLIKAN
(Second defendant)
LEWIS ROBINS
(Third defendant)
JUDGMENT (Defamation – issues for jury – s7A Defamation Act 1974 – issues of fact in respect of republication not for jury)

1 In this action, as it is presently structured, nine plaintiffs sue three defendants. For present purposes the relevant claim is for damages for defamation.

2 In the second further amended statement of claim filed on 13 September last year in paragraphs 33 and 34 the following is pleaded:

33. The fourth matter complained of was published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and David Millikan in circumstances where it was the natural and probable consequence that the matter would be republished by other persons, especially educational institutions.

34. The fourth matter complained of has been republished at various times since its publication. The plaintiff at present cannot plead all the material facts, or provide all the particulars, in relation to such republications, but they included the following:

(a) Pymble Ladies College (PLC Pymble), Avon Rd, Pymble NSW 2073

Date of republication: Some time between 1995 and December 1998

(b) Presbyterian Ladies College Armidale (PLC Armidale), Crest Rd, Armidale NSW 1350

Date of republication: Some time in May 1995

(c) The Armidale School (TAS), Barney St, Armidale, NSW 2350

Date of republication: Some time in May 1995

(d) Anglican Church Grammar School (Churchie), Oaklands Pde, East Brisbane QLD…

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: [2003] NSWSC 298
Decision Date: 9 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Griffith, against the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Mr. Griffith alleged that the ABC had defamed him through a news segment broadcast on its television channel. The High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the legal issues that arose from this claim. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury regarding the scope of their consideration in relation to the republication of allegedly defamatory material. Specifically, the court had to determine whether issues concerning the republication of the material were questions of fact for the jury or questions of law for the judge.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Defamation Act 1974, particularly section 7A, which sets out the criteria for determining whether a publication has occurred. The court held that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury to consider certain factual matters related to the republication. According to the court, the determination of whether a republication had occurred was a question of law rather than a question of fact for the jury. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider these factual matters was incorrect and had the potential to misdirect them on an issue that was properly a matter of law. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's error necessitated a new trial.

In light of the above findings, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the judgment in favour of the defendant and ordering a new trial. The court did not provide specific orders for the conduct of the new trial but indicated that the trial judge should be mindful of the legal principles articulated in the judgment. The court emphasised the importance of correctly distinguishing between questions of fact and questions of law in defamation cases, particularly concerning the republication of defamatory material.

Orders