Massoud v Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Ltd; Massoud v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nine Digital Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2021] NSWDC 336
•29 July 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Massoud v Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Ltd; Massoud v Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nine Digital Pty Ltd; Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 336
[2021] NSWDC 336
29 July 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved the plaintiff, Massoud, who was suspended and subsequently dismissed from his employment as a journalist. The dismissal arose from his remarks to an 18-year-old cadet, which included the statement that if the cadet weren't so young, Massoud would "rip his head off and shit down his throat". Massoud initiated proceedings against five media organisations, alleging defamation due to their reporting of his remarks. These organisations included Radio 2GB Sydney Pty Ltd, Fox Sports Australia Pty Ltd, Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd, Nine Digital Pty Ltd, and Nationwide News Pty Ltd. Each defendant argued that their reports, while containing the plaintiff's quoted words, were factually correct and thus protected under the defences of justification and contextual truth.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the media organisations had defamed Massoud by misquoting him and, if so, whether the defences of justification and contextual truth applied. The court had to determine the accuracy of the media reports, the context in which the statements were made, and whether the reported content was substantially true. Additionally, the court examined whether the defendants had acted negligently in their reporting.
The court found that the media reports, while including the plaintiff's words, were substantially accurate and were made in a context that was truthful. The court concluded that the defendants had not acted negligently and that the defences of justification and contextual truth were applicable. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of all the defendants, finding that they were not liable for defamation. The court also ordered that Massoud pay the defendants' costs, with liberty to apply, and that exhibits be retained until further order.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the media organisations had defamed Massoud by misquoting him and, if so, whether the defences of justification and contextual truth applied. The court had to determine the accuracy of the media reports, the context in which the statements were made, and whether the reported content was substantially true. Additionally, the court examined whether the defendants had acted negligently in their reporting.
The court found that the media reports, while including the plaintiff's words, were substantially accurate and were made in a context that was truthful. The court concluded that the defendants had not acted negligently and that the defences of justification and contextual truth were applicable. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of all the defendants, finding that they were not liable for defamation. The court also ordered that Massoud pay the defendants' costs, with liberty to apply, and that exhibits be retained until further order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Justification
-
Contextual Truth
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Dalas v White; White v Dalas [2025] VCC 1410
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Lee v Hwang; Hwang v Lee
[2022] NSWDC 182
Dalas v White; White v Dalas
[2025] VCC 1410
Cases Cited
76
Statutory Material Cited
4
Abou-Lokmeh v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd
[2016] NSWCA 228
Agustin-Bunch v Smith
[2021] VSC 158
Ainsworth v Burden
[2005] NSWCA 174