Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 1229

CITATION: JACKSON & 9 ORS v TCN CHANNEL 9 PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 1229 revised - 11/03/2003

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 21010/96

HEARING DATE(S): 3/12/01, 4/12/01, 5/12/01, 6/12/01, 7/12/01, 10/12/01, 11/12/01, 12/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 December 2002

PARTIES :

Kellie Jackson (First Plaintiff)
Glen Jackson (Second Plaintiff)
Robert Fielding (Third Plaintiff)
Colin Budd (Fourth Plaintiff)
James Elliott (Fifth Plaintiff)
Gregory Hinvest (Sixth Plaintiff)
Brian Rodney (Seventh Plaintiff)
Peter Russell (Eighth Plaintiff)
Steven Shuttleworth (Ninth Plaintiff)
Dennis Wheeler (Tenth Plaintiff)
TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr Tom Molomby SC with Mr R Rasmussen (Plaintiffs)
Mr B McClintock SC with Mr M Richardson (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Paul Kenny & Associates (Plaintiffs)
Gilbert & Tobin (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - aggravated damages - exemplary damages - significance of limited interstate publication - relevance of bad reputation

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Jackson v TCN Channel 9 [2001] NSWCA 108
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Ahern v The Queen 1988 (165) CLR 87
Eastwood v Holmes (1958) 1 F & F 347; (1958) 175 ER 758
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Limited [1944] AC 116
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1996) 117 CLR 118
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Herald & Weekly Times Limited v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Henry v TVW Enterprises (1990) 3 WAR 474
TVNZ v Quinn [1996] 3 NZLR 24
John v MGN [1997] QB 586
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 2 SCR 1130
Lam v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 792
Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 739
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-691
Broome v Cassell & Co 9[AC at 1072

DECISION: Judgment and verdict for the plaintiffs in the sum specified plus interest; Liberty to apply on 7 days' notice; Costs for two counsel certified

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 20 DECEMBER 2002

21010/96

KELLIE JACKSON & 9 ORS v TCN CHANNEL 9 PTY LTD

1 HIS HONOUR: This defamation action arises out of the foolishness of the plaintiffs in accepting undertakings made to them on behalf of the defendant, TCN 9 Channel 9 Pty Ltd (TCN) about the use that would be made of footage recorded as part of a television series broadcast by TCN called Weddings, which was shown in the latter part of 1995. The footage in question was shown on the programme A Current Affair (ACA) produced and broadcast by TCN at about 6.30 pm on 1 January 1996 and on the Today programme at about 7.45 am on 2 July 1996. A jury has determined under s7A of the Defamation Act

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 Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd 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: [2002] NSWSC 1229
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant, a television network, regarding the plaintiff's professional conduct. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff, a chartered accountant, was defamed by the defendant's broadcast of a segment on a current affairs program. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages. A significant aspect of the case was the scope of the publication, which was limited to the state of New South Wales. The court also needed to consider the impact of the plaintiff's professional reputation on the assessment of damages. The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's limited interstate reputation meant that the defendant's liability for defamation was reduced.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated or exemplary damages. The court found that the limited interstate publication did not diminish the seriousness of the defamatory imputations. The court held that the plaintiff's professional reputation was an important factor in determining the appropriate level of damages, but the limited interstate publication did not negate the seriousness of the defamation. The court emphasised that the reputation of the plaintiff in the relevant professional community was a critical consideration in assessing damages.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to general damages for defamation, but not aggravated or exemplary damages. The precise amount of general damages was to be determined at a subsequent hearing. The court also noted that the plaintiff's professional reputation was a significant factor in the assessment of general damages.

Orders