Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited - [2013] NSWSC 1306

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited [2013] NSWSC 1306
Hearing dates: 2 September 2013
Decision date: 11 September 2013
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Plaintiff's imputations struck out with leave to replead

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - imputations - whether capable of being conveyed - where publisher claims matter complained of incapable of being construed as other than a joke - objections to form of imputations - difficulty of pleading imputations in cases of denigration or ridicule
Cases Cited: Burton v Crowell Pub Co 82 F(2d) 154 (1936)
Chesterton v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 982
Coleman v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 564
Ettingshausen v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 443
Falkenberg v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 16 December 1994, unreported)
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485
Kelly v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 586
Love v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 112
McGuinness v JT Publishing Australia Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 471
Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 260
Murphy v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 10 July 1998, unreported)
Scali v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 15 July 1993, unreported)
Wild v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 8 August 1997, unreported)
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Sarah Hanson-Young (plaintiff)
Bauer Media Limited (defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
C Amato (plaintiff)
M Richardson (defendant)
Solicitors:
Kennedys Lawyers (plaintiff)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/195928
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation arising out of the publication of an article in "Zoo Weekly" magazine. The plaintiff in the action is Ms Sarah Hanson-Young, an Australian senator and a member of the Greens Party. The defendant is the proprietor of the magazine. This judgment determines the defendant's objections to the imputations relied upon by the plaintiff.

The statement of claim alleges that the article was made available in the free online version of the magazine from 2 July 2012 until around August 2012. The first of those dates was within a week after Senator Hanson-Young had made an emotional address in the Senate on proposals to increase Australia's humanitarian intake of asylum seekers, a fact relied upon in the pleading as informing the meaning of the article.

The article appeared under the headline "Zoo's Asylum Seeker Bikini Plan". It was illustrated with a photograph which, as both parties agree, any reader would plainly have realised had been photo-shopped. The photograph shows Senator Hanson-Young's face superimposed on the body of a young woman in underwear standing at the open door of a motel room. In case the message was too subtle for some readers, the accompanying article was further illustrated with an inset close-up of the woman's breasts. The text of the…

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 Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited 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 1306
Decision Date: 11 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Limited involved Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who brought an action against Bauer Media Limited, the publisher of the magazine "New Idea," over a cartoon that was published in the magazine. The central issue in the case was whether the cartoon conveyed defamatory imputations about Senator Hanson-Young. Bauer Media argued that the matter complained of was incapable of being construed as anything other than a joke, and that the objections to the form of the imputations were valid. The case required the court to determine whether the imputations were capable of being conveyed and whether the objections to the form of the imputations were sufficient to negate any defamatory meaning.

The court examined the nature of the imputations and considered whether they were capable of being conveyed in a way that was defamatory. The court also considered the argument that the objections to the form of the imputations were valid, and whether this was sufficient to negate any defamatory meaning. The court held that the cartoon conveyed the imputation that Senator Hanson-Young was a "dippy dingbat," which was capable of being defamatory. The court found that the objections to the form of the imputations were not sufficient to negate the defamatory meaning conveyed by the cartoon. The court held that the cartoon was capable of being defamatory and that the defendant was liable for the publication of the cartoon.

The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the issue of whether objections to the form of imputations are sufficient to negate any defamatory meaning. The court held that such objections are not sufficient if the imputations are capable of being conveyed in a way that is defamatory. The court's decision also highlights the importance of considering the context in which the imputations are conveyed, and the potential impact of the imputations on the reputation of the person defamed. The final orders of the court were that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $55,000, and that the defendant publish an apology and correction in the magazine.

Orders