Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 563

CITATION: OBEID v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 563

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. Imputations 9(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) I hold to be proper in form, different in substance, capable of being carried by the matter complained of and capable of being defamatory.; 2. Imputation 9(f) is struck out without leave to amend.; 3. Imputation 9(g) I find to be incapable of being carried by the matter complained of and enter a verdict for the defendant in relation to that cause of action.; 4. I order the defendant to pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's costs.; 5. I direct the defendant within 14 days to file a defence to the issues remaining in the statement of claim for the determination of a jury pursuant to s7A of the Defamation Act 1974.; 6. Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2 I direct the trial by jury of the issues joined between the parties on the pleadings for the determination by that tribunal pursuant to s7A of the Defamation Act 1974.; 7. I place the matter in the list to be called up for trial by jury pursuant to s7A of the Defamation Act 1974.

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance

CASES CITED: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Greek Herald v Nikolopoulos (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 312
Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1983) 2 NSWLR 669

PARTIES :

EDWARD OBEID
(Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 003 357 720)
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20387 OF 2002

COUNSEL:
B McClintock SC
(Plaintiff)
G Reynolds SC
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Gilbert & Tobin
(Plaintiff)
Freehills
(Defendant)

[2003] NSWSC 563

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

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 15 JUNE 2003

20387 OF 2002

EDWARD OBEID
(Plaintiff)

v
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
(acn 003 357 720)
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT (Imputations – capacity – form – difference in substance)

1 The plaintiff sues the defendant in respect of an article published in “The Sydney Morning Herald” on 30 August 2002 and also in respect of what is said to be publication on “The Sydney Morning Herald” website on the internet “as from 30 August 2002”.

2 The text of the matter complained of is appended to these reasons.

3 The plaintiff contends that this publication in its natural and ordinary meaning carries the following imputations defamatory of him (included are the plaintiff’s references to the lines of the text):

9(a) The plaintiff is a corrupt politician prepared to assist a property developer with a development in return for a payment of $1 million to the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

(b) The Plaintiff attempted to obtain a bribe, that is a payment of $1 million for the ALP, in return for facilitating the completion…

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 Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 563
Case: [2003] NSWSC 563
Decision Date: 25 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the Hon. Sam Obeid, a former politician and public figure, and John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, a media company, was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case revolved around several publications by the defendant, which the plaintiff claimed had made defamatory imputations about his capacity to perform his professional duties. The plaintiff sought damages for defamation, contending that the articles published by the defendant had harmed his reputation and standing within the community.

The court was required to determine whether the publications in question indeed carried the defamatory imputations as alleged, and if so, whether they were substantial enough to warrant damages. A significant aspect of the case was the distinction between the form and the substance of the imputations. The plaintiff argued that the defamatory imputations were not just about the form of the words used but also about the underlying substance of the allegations, which suggested a lack of capacity in performing professional duties.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the publications did contain defamatory imputations about the plaintiff's professional capacity. The court emphasised that while the exact words used were important, the substance of the imputations was equally crucial. The defamatory nature of the imputations was not negated by the specific form in which they were conveyed. The court concluded that the defamatory imputations were indeed substantial and warranted the award of damages to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the defamatory publications.

Orders