National Road and Motorists' Association Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd - [2002] ACTSC 9

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993

NATIONAL ROAD AND MOTORISTS’ ASSOCIATION LIMITED v NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED [2002] ACTSC 9 (6 MARCH 2002)

CATCHWORDS

COURTS – cross-vesting of jurisdiction – application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of New South Wales – whether in interests of justice.

COURTS – case management – specialised defamation list in New South Wales – whether likely to give speedier and cheaper justice – option for parties to submit to directions of this Court to ensure early hearing date.

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993, s 5

Bourke & Ors v State Bank of NSW (1988) 85 ALR 61

John Pfeiffer Pty Limited v Rogerson (2000) 172 ALR 625, [2000] HCA 36

No. SC 473 of 2001

Judge: Miles CJ

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 6 March 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SC 473 of 2001

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: NATIONAL ROADS AND MOTORISTS’ ASSOCIATION LIMITED (ACN 000 010 506)

Plaintiff

AND: NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 685 407)

Defendant

ORDER

Judge: Miles CJ

Date: 6 March 2002

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for transfer be dismissed..

This is an application by the defendant for an order that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under s 5(2)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993.
The proceedings were commenced by originating application filed on 19 July 2001. The statement of claim accompanying the originating application alleges that on 11 March 2001 the defendant broadcast a television program throughout Australia defamatory of the plaintiff. The defendant has filed an appearance but has not yet filed any grounds of defence.
The statement of claim alleges various imputations to the effect that the plaintiff is corrupt, unstable, untrustworthy, an investment risk, and controlled by a clique of people who put their own interests before those of the plaintiff and its members generally. None of those people is joined as a co-defendant.
A transcript of what is alleged to be heard on the program is attached to the statement of claim. The transcript shows that the program is concerned with the administration of the affairs of the plaintiff. The program is alleged to contain a report entitled "Road Rage: The Battle for the NRMA". There are also interviews with various people, disgruntled members in the main.
By consent I viewed a copy of the video tape of the program. The events shown appear to have taken place mainly in Sydney.
The affidavit evidence shows that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Australian Corporations Law and limited by guarantee. It appears to be the successor of another company or entity going back many decades. Its objectives are broadly to promote the interests of motorists throughout Australia. Its membership is confined almost entirely to residents of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Qualifications for membership however do not appear to be geographically constrained.
As at 1…

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 National Road and Motorists' Association Ltd v Nine Network...

Details

AGLC: National Road and Motorists' Association Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 9
Case: [2002] ACTSC 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Road and Motorists’ Association Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, a motorists’ association, suing the defendant, a television network, for defamation arising from a broadcast. The plaintiff argued that the broadcast contained defamatory statements about its integrity and management. The defendant applied for the proceedings to be transferred from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, asserting that this would be in the interests of justice due to procedural advantages and the specialist defamation list in New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was in the interests of justice, as required by s 5(2)(iii) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993. The court had to consider various factors, including the procedural differences between the courts, the potential for a quicker trial in New South Wales, and the expertise of the judges in handling defamation cases.

In dismissing the application, the court held that while the Supreme Court of New South Wales had a specialist defamation list and experienced judges, these factors did not necessarily make it more just to transfer the proceedings. The court found that the procedural differences, such as the split trial system in New South Wales, did not inherently provide a cost or time advantage. Furthermore, the court emphasised that it had sufficient experience to handle defamation cases efficiently. The judge also noted that the plaintiff's solicitors had an office in Canberra, potentially mitigating the inconvenience of conducting the trial in the ACT. The court stressed that it was up to the parties to ensure that the case was ready for trial, and it set a trial date for 15 July 2002, or earlier if the parties could agree. The defendant was ordered to pay half of the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders