Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

The case before the court involved a defamation claim brought by Mr Hockey against Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, the publisher of several media outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald. The dispute centred on multiple publications by Fairfax that were alleged to have defamed Mr Hockey by implying he engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to his ministerial office. The court had to determine whether the publications conveyed the pleaded defamatory imputations, the applicability and scope of the qualified privilege defence, and the assessment of damages.

The primary legal issues were whether the publications, including newspaper articles, headlines, posters, and tweets, conveyed the imputation of corruption to the ordinary reasonable reader. The court also had to decide if the requirement of reasonableness in the defence of qualified privilege applied to the entire publication or just the defamatory aspects, and whether the objective truth of the reported matters was relevant to this reasonableness. Additionally, the court examined whether the conduct of the respondents was actuated by malice, considering the potential attribution of an employee’s malice to the entire organisation.

In determining these issues, the court considered the various meanings of the word “corrupt” and its cognates, noting that the ordinary reasonable reader might perceive some private benefits obtained by politicians as unremarkable, while others could be seen as improper and corrupt. The court concluded that the articles, taken together with related publications and graphics, conveyed the pleaded imputations of corrupt conduct to the ordinary reasonable reader. Regarding qualified privilege, the court found that the requirement of reasonableness applied to the entire publication, not just the defamatory aspects. The court also determined that the objective truth of the reported matters was not relevant to the reasonableness of the publication under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The issue of malice was addressed by considering whether the respondents were actuated by malice in publishing the entire matter, with the court finding no evidence of malice.

The court adjourned the matter for further submissions on injunctions, interest, costs, and the form of orders to give effect to its findings. Additionally, the case was adjourned for submissions on costs and the form of orders.