Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWSC 1059

Reported Decision:
68 NSWLR 150

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 1059

HEARING DATE(S): 14/08/2006, 15/08/2006, 16/08/2006, 17/08/2006, 21/08/2006, 22/08/2006, 23/08/2006, 24/08/2006, 12/09/2006, 13/09/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J at 1

DECISION: I enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $162,173. Liberty to apply re: costs.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - Defence of qualified privilege under statute and at common law - four imputations defamatory of plaintiff found pursuant to Defamation Act section 7A - whether conduct of publisher was reasonable - seriousness of imputations - extent of inquiry before publication - accuracy of article - reputation of plaintiff - assessment of compensatory damages - whether aggravated damages should be awarded.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)
Defamation Act 1957 (Tas)
Defamation Act 1989 (Qld)

CASES CITED: Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Evatt v Nationwide News Pty Limited [1999] NSWCA 99
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Makim v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1990) 5 BR 196 at 209
MBP (SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
Mirror Newspapers v Jools (1985) 5 FCR 507
Morgan v John Fairfax (No 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1977) 2 NSWLR 749 at 797
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Limited 216 CLR 327 at 351 [72] – [76]

PARTIES: Edward Obeid - Plaintiff
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20387/2002

COUNSEL: BR McClintock SC/M Richardson - Plaintiff
G Reynolds SC/R Glasson/K Smark - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Gilbert and Tobin - Plaintiff
Freehills - Defendant

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

HOEBEN J

Thursday, 12 October 2006

20387/2002 – Edward OBEID v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR:

Nature of Proceedings

Defamation Act

2 The imputations found were:

“(a) The plaintiff is a corrupt politician prepared to assist the Bulldogs Leagues Club with a development in return for payment of $1M to the Australian Labor Party (ALP);

(b) The plaintiff attempted to obtain a bribe, that is a payment of $1M for the ALP, in return for facilitating the completion of the Oasis development;

(c) The plaintiff lied when he denied that he had sought a bribe for the ALP in return for facilitating the completion of the Oasis development;

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 1059
Decision Date: 12 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Mr Samier Obeid, suing the defendant, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, for defamation. The dispute arose from an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald, which contained four defamatory imputations regarding the plaintiff's character and conduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable, the seriousness of the imputations, the extent of the inquiry before publication, the accuracy of the article, the plaintiff's reputation, the assessment of compensatory damages, and whether aggravated damages should be awarded. The court had to consider these issues in light of the statutory defence of qualified privilege and the common law defence of fair comment.

The court held that the defendant's conduct was not reasonable, and the imputations were serious. The extent of the inquiry before publication was insufficient, and the article was not accurate. The plaintiff's reputation was harmed, and the court assessed the compensatory damages accordingly. The court also awarded aggravated damages to the plaintiff, finding that the defendant's conduct was egregious.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding compensatory damages and aggravated damages. The court held that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and that the statutory and common law defences of qualified privilege and fair comment were not applicable in this case. The court's decision highlights the importance of conducting thorough inquiries before publishing defamatory material and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders