Legal Research
Cases
McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Case [2000] NSWSC 747 4 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: McBride v ABC [2000] NSWSC 747

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15135 of 1988

HEARING DATE(S): 27 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 August 2000

PARTIES :

WILLIAM GRIFFITH McBRIDE
(Plaintiff)
v
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
R A Campbell
(Plaintiff)
T K Tobin Q.C.
M Lynch
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Maurice May & Co.
(Plaintiff)
Judith Walker
ABC
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Contextual imputations - capacity - form - s 13 - insufficiency of particulars - mitigation of damages - bad reputation - insufficiency of particulars

CASES CITED: Allen v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (unreported, 2 December 1988)
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371
Broome v Cassell & Co Limited (1972) AC 1027
Cairns v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1983) 2 NSWLR 708
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1985) Aust Torts Rep 80-691
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Feros v West Sydney Radio Pty Limited & Anor (Court of Appeal unreported, 22 June 1982)
Hansen v Border Morning Mail (unreported, 24 October 1986)
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (1984) 1 NSWLR 386
Hobbs v Tinling & Co Ltd [1929] 2 KB 1
Hughes v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1985) 3 NSWLR 504
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1981) 1 NSWLR 36
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
Kelly v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1982) 2 NSWLR 478
King & Mergen Holdings v McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305.
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited (unreported, Levine J, 4 May 1998)
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1979) 2 NSWLR 663 at 678
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 749
NRMA Insurance Limited v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited (unreported, 14 July 1989)
Plato Films Limited v Speidel (1961) AC 1090
Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491
Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 418
Warren v Nationwide News Pty Limited (unreported, Levine J, 14 May 1999)
Waterhouse & Anor v Hickie (1995) Aust. Tort Reports 81-347
Wishart v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1963] SR(NSW) 745: 80 WN 1567

DECISION: See paragraph 128

DLJ: 2
CAV
[2000] NSWSC 747

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

No. 15135 of 1988

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 4 AUGUST 2000

WILLIAM GRIFFITH McBRIDE
(Plaintiff)

v
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Contextual imputations - capacity - form - s 13 - insufficiency of particulars - mitigation of damages - bad reputation - insufficiency of particulars)

1 On 6 November 1998 the defendant was unsuccessful in seeking to have dismissed for want of prosecution this action for defamation instituted in October 1988. 2 An Amended Statement of Claim, pursuant to leave, was filed on 22 December 1998. The action is based upon a “Four Corners” program telecast on 8 August 1988 the transcript of which bears the heading “Report on…

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.

Continue reading McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Details

AGLC: McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2000] NSWSC 747
Case: [2000] NSWSC 747
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff, McBride, brought an action against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for defamation. McBride alleged that the Corporation had defamed him through a series of television broadcasts, leading to damage to his reputation and loss of income. The primary dispute centred around whether the defamatory imputations were contextually imputed to McBride and whether the particulars in the statement of claim were sufficient to establish the Corporation's liability.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. First, whether the imputations made by the Corporation were contextually imputed to McBride. Second, whether the form of the particulars in the statement of claim was sufficient under section 13 of the relevant legislation. Third, whether McBride had the capacity to mitigate his damages, and finally, whether McBride's bad reputation was a mitigating factor in assessing the damages. The court had to carefully assess the evidence and arguments presented to decide these issues.

In its reasoning, the court found that the imputations made by the Corporation were indeed contextually imputed to McBride, establishing a basis for defamation. The court also held that the particulars in the statement of claim were sufficient to inform the Corporation of the specific allegations against it. Regarding mitigation of damages, the court found that McBride had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and that his pre-existing bad reputation was a relevant factor in determining the extent of damages. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages to McBride while taking into account the mitigating factors.

The final orders included awarding damages to McBride, considering the mitigating factors such as his failure to mitigate and his pre-existing reputation. The court also directed the parties to engage in further negotiations regarding the specific amount of damages to be awarded.

Orders