Ninio v Southern Television Corporation Pty Ltd No. DCCIV-95-766 Judgment No. D3552
Case
•
[1997] SADC 3552
•24 January 1997
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Ninio v Southern Television Corporation Pty Ltd No. DCCIV-95-766 Judgment No. D3552 [1997] SADC 3552
[1997] SADC 3552
24 January 1997
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Henry Ninio, who was the Lord Mayor of Adelaide, filed defamation proceedings against the defendant, Southern Television Corporation, the operator of Channel 9 television in Adelaide, seeking damages for a defamatory broadcast. The publication in question occurred on 10 April 1995, where the defendant aired a report concerning the partial closure of Barton Terrace West, a contentious issue in Adelaide. The plaintiff, who had been seeking to enforce the road closure, was accused of inflaming the issue for political gain, which the plaintiff claimed defamed him and lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The defendant argued that the broadcast was privileged and in the public interest, but the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published the words recklessly, without verifying their truth, thereby establishing express malice.
The court found that the words broadcast were capable of bearing the defamatory imputations alleged by the plaintiff. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence regarding the media communication policy within the Lord Mayor's office, which required all media inquiries to be directed to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's journalist's evidence that she had attempted to contact the plaintiff but was informed he was unavailable. Given the lack of proper inquiry and the sensitivity of the issue, the court concluded that the journalist acted recklessly and without belief in the truth of the defamatory words, establishing express malice. This finding defeated the defendant's defences of qualified privilege and fair comment.
Regarding damages, the court considered the purposes of defamation damages, which include consolation, reparation, and vindication of the plaintiff's reputation. Although the plaintiff won the Lord Mayoral election shortly after the broadcast, the court awarded $20,000 in damages to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public. Interest and costs were reserved for later determination.
The court found that the words broadcast were capable of bearing the defamatory imputations alleged by the plaintiff. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence regarding the media communication policy within the Lord Mayor's office, which required all media inquiries to be directed to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendant's journalist's evidence that she had attempted to contact the plaintiff but was informed he was unavailable. Given the lack of proper inquiry and the sensitivity of the issue, the court concluded that the journalist acted recklessly and without belief in the truth of the defamatory words, establishing express malice. This finding defeated the defendant's defences of qualified privilege and fair comment.
Regarding damages, the court considered the purposes of defamation damages, which include consolation, reparation, and vindication of the plaintiff's reputation. Although the plaintiff won the Lord Mayoral election shortly after the broadcast, the court awarded $20,000 in damages to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public. Interest and costs were reserved for later determination.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Qualified Privilege
-
Express Malice
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Ninio v Southern Television Corporation Pty Ltd No. DCCIV-95-766 Judgment No. D3552 [1997] SADC 3552
Most Recent Citation
Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 150
Cases Citing This Decision
22
Ten Group Pty Ltd v Cornes
[2012] SASCFC 99
Coleman v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
[2003] NSWSC 564
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Karen Shelmerdine v Bronwyn Mewett No. SCGRG 92/2156 Judgment No. 3932 Number of Pages 11 Defamation
[1993] SASC 3932
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd
[1993] HCA 31
Hennessy v Lynch (No. 2)
[2006] NSWDC 49