Korolak v Bauer Media Pty Ltd - [2016] NSWDC 98

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Korolak v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 98
Hearing dates: 2 June 2016
Date of orders: 09 June 2016
Decision date: 09 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
(1) Statement of claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant pursuant to UCPR r 28.4(2)(a).
(2) Liberty to apply in relation to costs, such liberty to be exercised in 28 days.

Catchwords: TORT – defamation – application for summary dismissal of proceedings on the basis that no imputations are capable of arising – matter complained of authored by plaintiff – whether headlines to matter complained of are capable of conveying the imputations pleaded – no defamatory imputations capable of arising from the matter complained of - judgment for defendant
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 28.2 and 28.4
Cases Cited: Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 679n
Chakravarti v The Advertiser Newspapers (1998) 193 CLR 519
Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65
Corby v Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 227
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652
International Financing and Investment Pty Ltd v Kent (Supreme Court of Western Australia, Bredmeyer M, 8 May 1997)
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1961] AC 234
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Morgan v Odham’s Press [1971] 1 WLR 1239
Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 418
Rayney v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 129
Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1536
The Herald & Weekly Times v A-G [2001] VSCA 152
Woodward v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 27 June 1996)
Texts Cited: -
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Rhondalynn Korolak
Defendant: Bauer Media Pty Limited (ACN 053 273 546)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen
Defendant: Ms L Barnett
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Beazley Boorman
Defendant: Johnson Winter & Slattery

File Number(s): 2016/138414
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The defendant brings an application pursuant to r 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) for a ruling that none of the pleaded imputations is capable of being conveyed and, pursuant to UCPR r 28.4, for judgment for the defendant to be entered.
The matter complained of, which is set out as a schedule to this judgment, is an unusual publication in that, apart from the headlines and layout, the whole of its contents are the plaintiff’s own life story “as told to Sonja Kowanjko” (see paragraph 3 of the schedule below). Written in the first person as one of a series of personal stories published by Take 5 magazine, this paid story (“WE PAY MORE! Up to $2,000 for your story” – paragraph 51)…

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 Korolak v Bauer Media 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: [2016] NSWDC 98
Decision Date: 09 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Korolak v Bauer Media Pty Ltd was a defamation case heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Ms Korolak, alleged that the defendant, Bauer Media Pty Ltd, defamed her through various articles published in the magazine "New Idea". The defendant filed an application for summary dismissal of the proceedings, arguing that no defamatory imputations could arise from the articles in question. The court was required to determine whether the articles, as well as their headlines, contained any defamatory imputations that could be understood by a reasonable reader.

The court considered whether the matter complained of contained any imputations that could be defamatory. The court held that the articles themselves were authored by Ms Korolak, and thus could not be defamatory as they did not make any imputations against her. The court also examined the headlines of the articles and determined that they did not convey any defamatory imputations. The court held that a reasonable reader would not infer from the articles or the headlines that Ms Korolak was a bad or unfit mother, or that she had committed any criminal activity. The court concluded that no defamatory imputations were capable of arising from the matter complained of.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the statement of claim and entered judgment in favour of the defendant. The court noted that while the plaintiff was entitled to liberty to apply for costs, such application should be made within 28 days of the judgment. The defendant was thus successful in their application for summary dismissal, and no further defamation proceedings could be brought in relation to the articles in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Statement of claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant pursuant to UCPR r 28.4(2)(a).

(2) Liberty to apply in relation to costs, such liberty to be exercised in 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Korolak v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 98
Hearing dates:	2 June 2016
Date of orders:	09 June 2016
Decision date:	09 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Statement of claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant pursuant to UCPR r 28.4(2)(a). (2) Liberty to apply in relation to costs, such liberty to be exercised in 28 days.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – application for summary dismissal of proceedings on the basis that no imputations are capable of arising – matter complained of authored by plaintiff – whether headlines to matter complained of are capable of conveying the imputations pleaded – no defamatory imputations capable of arising from the matter complained of - judgment for defendant
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 28.2 and 28.4
Cases Cited:	Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 679n Chakravarti v The Advertiser Newspapers (1998) 193 CLR 519 Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 Corby v Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 227 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652 International Financing and Investment Pty Ltd v Kent (Supreme Court of Western Australia, Bredmeyer M, 8 May 1997) John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77 Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1961] AC 234 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 Morgan v Odham’s Press [1971] 1 WLR 1239 Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 418 Rayney v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 129 Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1536 The Herald & Weekly Times v A-G [2001] VSCA 152 Woodward v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 27 June 1996)
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff: Rhondalynn Korolak Defendant: Bauer Media Pty Limited (ACN 053 273 546)
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen Defendant: Ms L Barnett Solicitors: Plaintiff: Beazley Boorman Defendant: Johnson Winter & Slattery
File Number(s):	2016/138414
Publication restriction:	None