Legal Research
Cases
Harrigan v Jones

Harrigan v Jones

Case [2001] NSWSC 623 27 July 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2001) Aust Torts Reports 81-621
[2001] NSWSC 623
[2001] ACL Rep 145 NSW 35

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Harrigan v Jones [2001] NSWSC 623

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20486/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25/06/01-02/07/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 July 2001

PARTIES :

Bill Harrigan - Plaintiff
Alan Jones - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Mathews AJ

COUNSEL : C Evatt; M Rollinson - Plaintiff
B McClintock SC; BA Connell - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Williamsons Solicitors - Plaintiff
Bush Burke & Company - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - Defences - JUSTIFICATION - Defamation Act 1974, s 15 - truth based on statistical information - defendant claimed statistics showed referee was biased - held, statistical information inadequate to prove the truth of the imputations - COMMENT - Defamation Act 1974, s 32 - whether imputations were opinion or statements of fact - held, imputations were opinion - whether comment was based on proper material for comment - s 30 - some factual statements not substantially true - whether comment represented an opinion which might reasonably be based on material which was substantially true - s 30(3)(b) - objective reasonableness - held, material not reasonably capable of supporting opinion - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - Defamation Act 1974, s 22(1)(c) - whether defendant’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances - defendant’s conclusions did not follow logically, fairly or reasonably from information provided - held, defendant’s conduct not reasonable - UNLIKELIHOOD OF HARM - Defamation Act 1974, s 13 - whether denial of defamatory statement by third party neutralised sting - defence not made out - DAMAGES - Defamation Act 1974, ss 46, 46A - relevant considerations

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Motor Accidents Act 1988

CASES CITED: Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448
NSW Aboriginal Land Council v Perkins (1998) 45 NSWLR 340
Gardiner v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171
Petritsis v Hellenic Herald Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 174
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [No 2] (1991) 23 NSWLR 374
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Stephens v Western Australia Newspapers (1994) 182 CLR 211
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80 - 691
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44
Hepburn v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 664

DECISION: Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $60,000 in relation to the first imputation and $15,000 in relation to each of the second and third imputations; I reserve the questions of interest and costs until a date to be fixed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MATHEWS AJ

27 JULY 2001

20486/99 - BILL HARRIGAN -v- ALAN JONES

JUDGMENT
Background

1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff, Bill Harrigan, is a prominent rugby league referee. The defendant, Alan Jones, is a well-known broadcaster with a regular morning program on radio 2UE and an average listening audience of…

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 Harrigan v Jones

Details

AGLC: Harrigan v Jones [2001] NSWSC 623
Case: [2001] NSWSC 623
Decision Date: 27 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harrigan v Jones, the plaintiff, Mr Harrigan, sought relief for defamatory statements made by the defendant, Mr Jones, regarding the plaintiff's conduct as a referee in a sporting event. The dispute was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Harrigan alleged that Mr Jones defamed him by implying that he was biased in his refereeing decisions, which he claimed caused him harm to his reputation and potential loss of income.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether Mr Jones' defence of justification was valid, whether the comments made were an opinion or statements of fact, and whether the comments were based on proper material for comment. Additionally, the court examined whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable in the context of qualified privilege, and whether the defence of unlikelihood of harm was applicable. Finally, the court considered the quantum of damages, if any, to be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court found that Mr Jones' claim of justification was inadequate as the statistical information provided was insufficient to prove the truth of the imputations regarding the plaintiff's bias. The court also determined that the comments made by Mr Jones were opinion, not statements of fact. Although some factual statements were substantially true, the court held that the material was not reasonably capable of supporting Mr Jones' opinion. The court further ruled that Mr Jones' conduct was not reasonable in the context of qualified privilege as his conclusions did not follow logically or reasonably from the information provided. The defence of unlikelihood of harm was rejected, and the court concluded that the defamatory statements had not been sufficiently neutralised by a denial from a third party. In relation to damages, the court found that Mr Harrigan was entitled to a nominal award given the defamatory nature of the comments and the impact on his reputation.

The court ordered that Mr Jones pay Mr Harrigan a nominal amount in damages, reflecting the harm caused by the defamatory statements. The court also noted that the opinion expressed by Mr Jones, while protected under certain conditions, did not meet the threshold for a reasonable opinion based on substantially true material.

Orders