McFarlane v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2014] NSWSC 1574

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McFarlane v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1574
Hearing dates: 17 October 2014
Decision date: 31 October 2014
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Defendant's strike-in application refused

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - pleading - where matter complained of consisting of 3 articles published on the same pages of the newspaper - application by defendant to strike in a fourth article published on the same page - entitlement of plaintiff to choose mode of pleading
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Obeid (2006) NSWCA 231
Phelps v Nationwide News Pty Limited 2001 NSWSC 130
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Katherine McFarlane (plaintiff)
Nationwide News Pty Ltd (defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
T Molomby (plaintiff)
L Mullins (defendant)
Solicitors:
TK Legal (plaintiff)
News Ltd (defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/269526
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Katherine McFarlane against Nationwide News Pty Limited in respect of a series of articles published in the same newspaper on the same day. The defendant contends that a further article appearing on the same page as a number of the articles sued on ought also to be included as part of the matter complained of and accordingly seeks an order striking that material in.

At the outset of the argument, which was heard on the first listing of the proceedings in the defamation list, Ms Mullins, who appears for Nationwide News, informed the court that publication is not in dispute and provided to the Court an admission as to the circulation of The Daily Telegraph on the relevant day. I wish to acknowledge the appropriateness of her having done so. It is exactly the approach intended to be encouraged by the recently revisions to the practice note that governs the defamation list (SC CL 4).

The argument proceeded by reference to copies of the relevant pages of the newspaper, which reveal that the plaintiff has pleaded, as a single matter complained of, three separate articles. The first appeared on the front page of The Daily Telegraph. That article directs the reader, at the conclusion of the material appearing there, to the "full report pages 4 to 5".

The second, under the heading, "A Minister's minefield as conflict kept below surface" was spread over pages 4 and 5 of the paper. The third, under the heading, "Problems arise as an attack backfires" appears on the right-hand column of page 5.

The material sought to be struck in by Nationwide News is a further article appearing on page 4, being an article under the heading, "District loses out, but that's okay in a one pub town".

The subject matter of the articles was a decision of the Minister for Planning, for whom the plaintiff worked as chief of staff. According to the newspaper articles, the decision put an end to the proposed expansion of a mining site in an area where the plaintiff owns property.

Nationwide News contends that the additional article would have been read by the ordinary…

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 McFarlane v Nationwide News 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: [2014] NSWSC 1574
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McFarlane v Nationwide News Pty Ltd involved a defamation action initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant, a media corporation, over the publication of three articles in a newspaper. The plaintiff alleged that the articles defamed them and sought damages and an apology. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's publication constituted defamation and, if so, the appropriate remedies. The defendant sought to strike out certain parts of the plaintiff's pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had improperly joined the articles in their claim. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had the right to choose the mode of pleading in defamation cases, particularly where multiple articles were published on the same pages of a newspaper.

The court held that the plaintiff had the entitlement to choose how to plead their defamation claim, including joining multiple articles in the same proceeding. The court found that the plaintiff's mode of pleading was not improper as the articles in question were part of a single publication and were published on the same pages, making them a cohesive whole. The court also noted that the plaintiff's choice of pleading did not prejudice the defendant and allowed for a comprehensive resolution of the defamation allegations. The defendant's application to strike out parts of the plaintiff's pleadings was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial on the merits of the defamation claim.

The court's decision affirmed the plaintiff's right to determine the scope of their defamation claim and how it should be presented in court. This ruling provided clarity for future defamation cases involving multiple articles published in close proximity. The case underscored the importance of allowing plaintiffs to plead their cases in a manner that best suits their circumstances, provided it does not unfairly prejudice the defendant. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of fairness and the need for an efficient resolution of defamation disputes. The case concluded with directions for the parties to proceed with the trial on the merits of the defamation claim.

Orders