CITATION: Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWDC 26 HEARING DATE(S): 27/11/06-30/11/06, 1/12/06, 4/12/06 and 8/12/06, 2/02/07 and 16/02/07
JUDGMENT DATE:
9 March 2007JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ DECISION: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $150,000; 2.Interest at 2% per annum from the date of publication (30 August 2002) to the date of judgment (8 March 2007); 3.The plaintiff and defendant have liberty to apply in relation to order 2 or, in the alternative, to file short minutes of order reflecting the total judgment sum inclusive of interest; 4.Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs; 5.Liberty to restore in relation to any costs or interest argument; 6. Exhibits retained for 28 days CATCHWORDS: Defamation - statutory defence of qualified privilege, common law qualified privilege for discussion of government and political matters - common law qualified privilege and Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited - defence of "responsible journalism" - reasonableness - seriousness of imputations - failure to enquire before publication - accuracy of publication - general damages - aggravated compensatory damages - impact of damages awarded in proceedings against other defendants. LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Austin v Mirror Newspapers (1985) 3 NSWLR 354
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Obeid [2006] NSWCA 231
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 229 ALR 257
Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-691
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Evatt v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1999) NSWCA 19
Jameel Co Ltd v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2004] EWHC 37 (QB)
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (No. 2) [2005] EWLA Civ 74
Jameel & Anor v Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44
Jarrett v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 739
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane [2005] NSWCA 164
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd & Anor v Vilo [2001] NSWCA 290
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd & Anor v Zunter [2006] NSWCA 227
Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1135
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
MPB (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No. 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Limited [1977] 2 NSWLR 749
Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1059
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327
State of New South Wales v Riley (2002-3) 57 NSWLR 496PARTIES: Edward Obeid (Plaintiff)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): 7273/02 COUNSEL: Bruce McClintock SC; M Richardson (Plaintiff)
T C Blackburn SC; E Raper (Defendant)SOLICITORS: Johnson Winter & Slattery (Plaintiff)
ABC Legal Services (Defendant)
1 HER HONOUR ... Mr Obeid, a member of the Upper House of the State Parliament of New South Wales…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2007] NSWDC 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Mr Samier Obeid, initiated proceedings against the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking damages for defamation. The defamation arose from an ABC broadcast of a current affairs program, "Four Corners," which included allegations that Mr Obeid was involved in the financing of terrorism. The plaintiff argued that the broadcast was defamatory and that the ABC had failed to establish the necessary defences of qualified privilege or responsible journalism. The court was required to determine whether the ABC's broadcast was protected by qualified privilege, whether the defence of responsible journalism was available, and if so, the appropriate quantum of damages.
The court first examined whether the broadcast was protected by either statutory or common law qualified privilege. The statutory defence was rejected as the plaintiff was not a public official and the publication did not pertain to a statutory duty. Regarding common law qualified privilege, the court noted that the Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited test applied, requiring the defendant to demonstrate a duty to communicate the information to the recipient and that the recipient had a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. The court concluded that the broadcast was not protected by qualified privilege as the ABC did not have a sufficient duty to communicate the information to the audience. The court then considered the defence of responsible journalism, requiring the defendant to show that the publication was made responsibly, with reasonable steps taken to verify the facts. The court found that the ABC had not taken reasonable steps to verify the allegations, particularly given the serious nature of the imputations. The court also considered the impact of damages awarded in other proceedings against different defendants, which influenced the quantum of damages.
The court awarded damages of $150,000 to the plaintiff, along with interest at 2% per annum from the date of publication to the date of judgment. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs and granted liberty to apply in relation to the interest or to file short minutes of the total judgment sum inclusive of interest. The exhibits were retained for 28 days.
The court first examined whether the broadcast was protected by either statutory or common law qualified privilege. The statutory defence was rejected as the plaintiff was not a public official and the publication did not pertain to a statutory duty. Regarding common law qualified privilege, the court noted that the Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited test applied, requiring the defendant to demonstrate a duty to communicate the information to the recipient and that the recipient had a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. The court concluded that the broadcast was not protected by qualified privilege as the ABC did not have a sufficient duty to communicate the information to the audience. The court then considered the defence of responsible journalism, requiring the defendant to show that the publication was made responsibly, with reasonable steps taken to verify the facts. The court found that the ABC had not taken reasonable steps to verify the allegations, particularly given the serious nature of the imputations. The court also considered the impact of damages awarded in other proceedings against different defendants, which influenced the quantum of damages.
The court awarded damages of $150,000 to the plaintiff, along with interest at 2% per annum from the date of publication to the date of judgment. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs and granted liberty to apply in relation to the interest or to file short minutes of the total judgment sum inclusive of interest. The exhibits were retained for 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $150,000; 2.Interest at 2% per annum from the date of publication (30 August 2002) to the date of judgment (8 March 2007); 3.The plaintiff and defendant have liberty to apply in relation to order 2 or, in the alternative, to file short minutes of order reflecting the total judgment sum inclusive of interest; 4.Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; 5.Liberty to restore in relation to any costs or interest argument; 6. Exhibits retained for 28 days
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.