O'Neill v Jones - [1999] NSWSC 270

CITATION: O'Neill v Jones & Anor [1999] NSWSC 270

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20914 of 1997

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 April 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN ANTHONY O'NEILL
(Plaintiff)
v
ALAN BEDFORD JONES
(First Defendant)
RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
J Sackar Q.C.
(Plaintiff)
B McClintock S.C.
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Freehill Hollingdale & Page
(Plaintiff)
Bush Burke & Co.
(Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance

DECISION: See paragraph 16

DLJ : 2

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

No. 20914 of 1997

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
THURSDAY 1 APRIL 1999

JOHN ANTHONY O’NEILL
(Plaintiff)

v

ALAN BEDFORD JONES
(First Defendant)
RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance)

1 The plaintiff sues the defendant in respect of two broadcasts.
2 The first publication was on 15 September 1997 and is in the following terms (as set out in Annexure A):
“ ALAN JONES:
I’ll tell you something. You think league’s in trouble. On Friday night, the had the best that Sydney grade rugby could offer, with the exception of the Manly Club: the champion club Randwick against a club with a magnificent history, Gordon, and Eastwood still trying to win a Premiership, with Warringah likewise. What a line-up.
How many were there? 7,000. Why? Well, why would supporters go when their best team isn’t on the paddock? All because the ARU decided that they, not the players, will determine who plays grade rugby. Well, the public voted on Friday night with their feet.
John O’Neill, the boss of the ARU, is a failed banker. If he keeps running Australian Rugby the way he is, then he’s equally going to destroy the life-blood of the game, club football. And wherever you go, that’s exactly what supporters of the game are saying.
Now, the appointment of Rod McQueen as the Australian coach has given a fresh face to the game at a national level. What is now needs is a fresh face administratively. The players deserve better than the support they got on Friday night. The games deserves better than to be run by ego-trippers like John O’Neill”.
3 The plaintiff pleads in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim (and by reason of correspondence containing amendments) the following imputations:
“(a) The plaintiff is a failed banker.
(b) The plaintiff is not competent to run the Australian Rugby Union.
(c) As head of the ARU, the plaintiff is taking decisions, driven by his exaggerated sense of his own abilities, which are likely to destroy the game of rugby union.
(d) As head of the ARU, the plaintiff is taking decision which are likely to destroy the game of rugby union in order to gratify his ego.
(e) The plaintiff as head of the ARU is running so badly that he deserves to be fired”.
4 The second matter complained of said…

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 O'Neill v Jones

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Jones [1999] NSWSC 270
Case: [1999] NSWSC 270
Decision Date: 1 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Neill v Jones involved a dispute concerning the imputations made by the plaintiff, O'Neill, against the defendant, Jones. O'Neill sought to establish whether the imputations made were capable of lowering Jones's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge was tasked with interpreting the precise nature and impact of the imputations made. The court needed to determine whether the differences in the form of the imputations altered their substance and whether the plaintiff had successfully established a case of defamation.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the imputations made by O'Neill to Jones were capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, and if the form in which these imputations were made altered their substance. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the differences in the form of the imputations were significant enough to change their defamatory nature. The court was required to balance the differences in form against the underlying substance of the imputations to decide whether they were indeed defamatory.

The court found that the imputations made by O'Neill to Jones were capable of carrying a defamatory meaning. The primary judge held that the form of the imputations did not significantly alter their substance, and thus, they retained their defamatory character. The court emphasised that the defamatory nature of the imputations was determined by their substance, rather than their form. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of O'Neill, finding that the imputations were indeed capable of lowering Jones's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The decision underscored the importance of assessing the substance of the imputations over their form in defamation cases.

The court ordered that the case be returned to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the findings and conclusions reached. The outcome highlighted the need for careful consideration of both the form and substance of imputations in defamation cases, ensuring that the true impact of the statements on the defendant's reputation is accurately assessed.

Orders