Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd (No. 2)

In the case of Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd (No. 2), the plaintiff, Mr. Hunt, sued the defendant, Radio 2SM Pty Ltd, for defamation. The dispute arose from radio broadcasts made by the defendant, which the plaintiff claimed defamed him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the broadcasts contained defamatory imputations about his professional conduct and business practices. The defendant denied the allegations and claimed that any defamation was fair and reasonable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury or the trial judge should determine certain questions related to the defence of offer of amends and self-compelled publication. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the jury should consider these issues in relation to the imputations individually or the publications as a whole. The court also had to determine whether the jury should be instructed to consider the defamatory meaning of each publication.

The court held that the questions of reasonableness for the purposes of section 18(1)(c) and the issue of self-compelled publication should be determined by the jury. The court reasoned that these issues should be considered in relation to the imputations individually rather than the publications as a whole. Additionally, the court instructed the jury to determine the defamatory meaning of each publication by answering specific questions for each of the imputations pleaded. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application, and the parties were required to exchange draft questions for the jury by midday Thursday 1 April 2010, to agree upon a list of questions before the commencement of the jury trial on Tuesday 6 April 2010.

The court's orders ensured that the jury would have clear instructions on the issues to be determined, and the parties would have an opportunity to finalise the jury questions before the trial commenced. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs, reflecting the court's view that the plaintiff's application was not well-founded.