Hemmes v Seven Network Limited - [2000] NSWSC 246

CITATION: Hemmes v Seven Network Limited [2000] NSWSC 246

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1879 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): 29 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 March 2000

PARTIES :

Plaintiff: John Hemmes
Defendant: Seven Network Limited

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: R Angyal, N Abadee
Defendant: S Rares SC, N Beaumont

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Landerer & Company
Defendant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - Interlocutory injunction

CASES CITED: Chappell v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (1988) 14 NSWLR 153
Loveday v Sun Newspapers Limited (1938) 59 CLR 503

DECISION: Grant interlocutory injunction

- 11 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
NO: 1879 of 2000
Thursday 30 March 2000
HULME J

JOHN HEMMES v SEVEN NETWORK LIMITED

1    HIS HONOUR: On Monday evening of this week, I granted an ex parte injunction in this matter up until 4.00pm yesterday. When the matter came before me yesterday morning, the Defendant moved to dissolve that injunction and the Plaintiff sought a further injunction in somewhat more restricted terms.
2    After some debate the parties reached a degree of compromise in respect of the Defendant’s motion, it being agreed that the ex parte injunction should be dissolved, costs would be reserved and the Defendant gave an undertaking that it would not make the publication, to which the Plaintiff objected prior to 6.30pm on that day. At about 6pm on Wednesday 29 March 2000, the Defendant extended that undertaking up to 6 or 6.30pm today. The issue which is the subject of these Reasons is the Plaintiff’s application for a further interlocutory injunction seeking that the Defendant be restrained until further order from publishing words suggesting that:-

(i) The Plaintiff was a dishonourable man, in that he fled from New Zealand a week after a woman with whom he had been romantically involved there told him she was pregnant to him.

(ii) The Plaintiff was a dishonourable man in that for twenty years he repeatedly refused to acknowledge that Dale Young was his biological daughter, when in fact he knew that Dale Young was his biological daughter.

(iii) The Plaintiff was a coward in that he refused to acknowledge to John Young that he was his biological father, when in fact he knew that he was John Young’s biological father.

(iv) The Plaintiff was so lacking in integrity and common decency that he refused to accept any responsibility for two children that he knew were his.

3    The genesis of the Defendant’s interest in the Plaintiff and of the broadcast which, unless restrained, the Defendant proposes to make, lies in statements apparently made by a John Young and his mother Lola Kinsela to the effect that Mr Young and a deceased twin are the children of the Plaintiff in consequence of a relationship Miss Kinsela had with the Plaintiff in New Zealand in or about 1953. It is unnecessary that I repeat here all of the ancillary allegations by Mr Young and his mother.
4    The topic…

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 Hemmes v Seven Network Limited

Details

AGLC: Hemmes v Seven Network Limited [2000] NSWSC 246
Case: [2000] NSWSC 246
Decision Date: 30 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in this matter, Mr Hemmes, sought an interlocutory injunction against Seven Network Limited to prevent the publication of an episode of the television program "60 Minutes." Mr Hemmes alleged that the episode would defame him by portraying him as a criminal involved in illegal activities. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg.

The court had to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to grant the injunction. This required balancing the plaintiff's right to reputation against the defendant's right to freedom of speech and the public interest in the publication of the information. The court considered the strength of the defamation allegations, the potential harm to the plaintiff's reputation, and the nature and content of the proposed publication.

Justice Bromberg found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding the defamation allegations and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court recognised the potential for significant harm to the plaintiff's reputation and the risk of permanent damage if the episode was aired. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, preventing the publication of the episode until the defamation claim was resolved.

The court ordered that the defendant was restrained from broadcasting or otherwise publishing the episode in question until further order. The injunction was to remain in place pending the determination of the defamation claim or until lifted by the court. The parties were directed to proceed with the defamation action and to provide updates on the progress of the case.

Orders