Packer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2002] NSWSC 1030

CITATION: Packer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 1030

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20350/97

HEARING DATE(S): 10/10/02, 11/10/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 November 2002

PARTIES :

Kerry Francis Bullmore PACKER v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

JUDGMENT OF: Cripps AJ

COUNSEL : Plaintiff- Mr B McClintock SC
Defendant - Mr T K Tobin QC & Mr N A Nichols

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff- Gilbert & Tobin Solicitors
Defendant- Mr Stephen Collins, ABC Legal

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - contextual imputations - whether capable of arising - if so whether capable of attracting the defence under s16 of the Defamation Act 1974

LEGISLATION CITED: Casino Control Act 1992
Defamation Act 1974
Listing Rules of the Australian Stock Exchange.

CASES CITED: Robinson v Laws & Anor (Unreported, QLDCA, 6 April 2001)
David Syme & Co v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
General Steel Industry Inc v Commissioner for Railways 112 CLR 125

DECISION: Defences 9(a), 10(a), 11(a) and 12(a) be struck out. The application is otherwise dismissed. The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the Motion.

- 12 -

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

CRIPPS AJ

5 NOVEMBER 2002

20350/97

Kerry Francis Bullmore PACKER –v –AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On the 7 April 1997, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) (the defendant), published a “Four Corners” television broadcast entitled “The Power of Packer”. The broadcast was repeated on 8 April 1997.

2 The program lasted approximately forty minutes. It was presented in three segments directed to three separate topics. Each segment focused on the conduct of the plaintiff and/or the Consolidated Press Holdings (CPH) a company he was said to control and persons over whom it was said he exerted influence with respect to those topics.

3 I have seen the “Four Corners” program and for self-evident reasons I do not propose to set out verbatim a transcript. The first segment, which lasted approximately thirty minutes, dealt with, inter alia, attempts by the plaintiff to obtain a licence under the Casino ControlAct 1992, for the Darling Harbour Casino. There were allegations concerning the influence the plaintiff had over certain politicians and, of relevance to the present application, there were allegations concerning the production in New South Wales of a confidential file kept by the Louisiana Police.

4 There were two syndicates competing for the licence – CPH and Circus Circus (an American Company having gambling interests throughout US) and Leighton Holding Limited and Showboat (a Louisiana company having gambling interests in that state). The file contained allegations of a suspicious connection between Showboat and the mafia. It was stated that its removal from a safe in Louisiana amounted to a serious breach of confidentiality. The segment also referred to other efforts by the plaintiff and/or CPH directed to ensuring that the Showboat-Leighton syndicate would not succeed in obtaining a licence. Included in it was a statement that the plaintiff and CPH had employed investigators to “dig up the dirt” on Showboat. Reference was made to a television…

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 Packer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Details

AGLC: Packer v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 1030
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1030
Decision Date: 5 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Packer and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The dispute pertained to defamatory statements broadcasted by the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Packer, sought damages for defamation, alleging that the defendant had broadcasted false and defamatory statements about him.

The central legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the imputations in the broadcast were capable of being defamatory. If they were, the court also needed to determine whether these imputations could attract the defence provided under section 16 of the Defamation Act 1974. The court examined the context in which the statements were made, the nature of the imputations, and whether these imputations could be considered defamatory in the eyes of the law. Additionally, the court considered whether the defence available under section 16 of the Defamation Act was applicable to the specific circumstances of the case.

The court held that the imputations made in the broadcast were indeed capable of being defamatory. It found that the statements had a clear and substantial impact on the plaintiff's reputation. The court further determined that the defence under section 16 of the Defamation Act was not applicable to these particular imputations. The court based its decision on the specific wording and context of the broadcast, concluding that the defence was not available in this case. As a result, the plaintiff was successful in his defamation claim.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but typically, in cases where the plaintiff successfully proves defamation, the court would grant damages to the plaintiff. The exact amount and nature of the damages would depend on the specifics of the case and the impact of the defamatory statements on the plaintiff's reputation and personal or professional life.

Orders