Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Wagner

The case of Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Wagner involves a defamation claim brought by the respondents against the Nine Network appellants and the sixth appellant, a journalist who featured in a 60 Minutes program. The jury found that the program and the journalist conveyed defamatory imputations regarding the respondents' alleged role in causing a flood in Grantham that resulted in twelve deaths. The trial judge made separate final judgments for damages for defamation in favour of each respondent against the Nine Network appellants and the sixth appellant. The appellants challenged the judgments, arguing that they erred in making a separate award against the sixth appellant, which operated cumulatively upon the award made against the Nine Network appellants. The appellants also contended that the damages awarded were excessive and did not bear an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm sustained by the respondents.

The court considered the legal issues regarding the liability of several concurrent tortfeasors, the form of the judgment, and the assessment of damages. The court found that it was appropriate to permit the appellants to raise the question of joint liability or liability as several concurrent tortfeasors on appeal. The court concluded that the judgments should follow the form "the judgment of the court is that… the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $X." The court also considered whether the damages awarded bore an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm sustained by the respondents. It found that the appellants' submissions did not establish that the trial judge erred in ensuring an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the respondents and the amount of damages awarded.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the judgment, ordering the Nine Network appellants and the sixth appellant to pay damages for defamation to each of the respondents. The judgment specified the amounts of damages for each respondent, including for aggravated damages and interest. The court also ordered the parties to file and serve submissions as to costs within a specified timeframe.