James Anthony Hall (First Plaintiff) Mark Gerard Sargent (Second Plaintiff) Robert John McCarthy (Third Plaintiff) Malcolm Cecil Cochrane (Fourth Plaintiff) Alan Jones (First Defendant) Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
Teakle.Ormsby.Conn (Plaintiffs) Bush Burke & Company (Defendants)
CATCHWORDS:
Defamation - whether two imputations pleaded differ in substance - whether other imputations pleaded are capable of arising - Unnamed plaintiffs - whether need for particulars of identification - Claim for aggravated damages - whether particulars provided sufficient.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Monday 14 February 2000
20262/99 JAMES ANTHONY HALL & ORS v ALAN JONES & ANOR
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: James Anthony Hall (the first plaintiff), Mark Gerard Sargent (the second plaintiff), Robert John McCarthy (the third plaintiff) and Malcolm Cecil Cochrane (the fourth plaintiff) each claims to have been defamed by Alan Jones (the first defendant) and Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited (the second defendant) in a radio broadcast on station 2UE on 31 May 1999.
2 It is asserted in the statement of claim that at all material times the first plaintiff was the Commissioner for the National Rugby League Judiciary, with responsibility for citing players before the judiciary, and that each of the other plaintiffs was a member of the judiciary panel itself. It further appears from a reading of the statement of claim scheduling the text of the broadcast alleged by the plaintiff, that it is claimed that the first defendant broadcast on a programme known as the “Alan Jones Show” an item that concerned a rugby league player who had come before the National Rugby League Judiciary to answer to a charge in relation to a tackle made on a player from an opposing team during a game of rugby league. The item was a lengthy one and in the schedule to the statement of claim in which it is set out there are 106 numbered paragraphs. The item was critical of the manner in which Darrell Trindall had been dealt with and its content has prompted the pleading of six imputations by the first plaintiff and a further five imputations by each of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs.
3 So far, whilst the defendants have…
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.
Continue reading Hall v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hall v Jones [2000] NSWSC 39
Case
[2000] NSWSC 39
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs, represented by Hall, brought an action against Jones and others in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging defamation. The case revolved around multiple imputations made about the plaintiffs, who were not specifically named in the pleadings. The plaintiffs sought aggravated damages, and the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the particulars provided for both the identification of the plaintiffs and the specific defamatory imputations.
The court had to address several key legal issues. First, it needed to determine whether the two imputations pleaded in the statement of claim differed in substance, as the defendants argued they did. Second, the court had to consider whether the other imputations pleaded were capable of arising. Third, the court had to examine whether the plaintiffs needed to provide particulars of identification, given that they were unnamed. Finally, the court needed to assess whether the particulars provided were sufficient for the claim of aggravated damages.
The court found that the two imputations did not differ in substance and that the other imputations pleaded were indeed capable of arising. The court ruled that particulars of identification were not necessary in this instance due to the nature of the defamation and the context in which it occurred. However, the court held that the particulars provided for the claim of aggravated damages were insufficient, as they failed to meet the requirements under section 31 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for aggravated damages.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim for aggravated damages be dismissed. The remaining claims for defamation and general damages were to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs were given a period within which to amend their particulars for the aggravated damages claim.