Legal Research
Cases
Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Case [2003] NSWSC 716 7 August 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Paul George Reading v ABC [2003] NSWSC 716

HEARING DATE(S): 23/07/03; 24/07/03; 25/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Shaw J

DECISION: Interlocutory orders made during the trial are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: Practice and procedure - Interlocutory issues in trial - whether plaintiff can amend statement of claim - whether plaintiff can tender transcript of broadcast - whether jury should be discharged

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 s 7A;
Evidence Act 1995 ss 55, 56, 135;
Jury Act 1977 s 55E;
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 34, 67

CASES CITED: Australian Iron and Steel Ltd v Greenwood (1961) 107 CLR 308;
Butera v DPP (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180;
Doe d' Lewis v Baster (1836) 5 Ad & El 129; 111 ER 1115;
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135;
Eve v Wright (1627) Cro Car 75; 79 ER 667;
Griffith & Ors v ABC [2003] NSWSC 486;
Hepburn v TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited [1984] 1 NSWLR 386;
Loveday's Case (1608) 8 Co Rep 65b; 77 ER 573;
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at 322;
Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311;
Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia [2001] NSWSC 926;
R v Russell (Unreported, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Dunn LJ, Michael Davies and Popplewell JJ, 20 March 1984; [1984] Crim LR 425);
Weber v Birkett [1925] 2 KB 152;
Whelan v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1988) 12 NSWLR 148;

PARTIES :
Paul George Reading - Plaintiff
Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20206/02

COUNSEL: B McClintock, SC with M Richardson - Plaintiff
B Walker, SC with R Francois - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers - Plaintiff
ABC Legal - Defendant

- 15 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Shaw J

7 August 2003

20206 of 2002

Paul George Reading (Plaintiff)

v

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 Shaw J: This is a matter pursuant to s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) which is concerned with whether imputations (or meanings) arise from a publication. It arises from a broadcast of the Four Corners program by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (“the ABC”) in April 1997 which named and referred to the plaintiff, Mr Reading, though in the context of a piece of investigatory journalism into the business dealings of Mr Kerry Packer, a significant figure in Australian business and publishing, and particularly, in relation to Mr Packer’s dealing or involvement with one of Australia’s oldest engineering companies, Australian National Industries (ANI).

Background

2 The Four Corners program reported that, in 1989, Mr Packer’s family company, Consolidated Press Holdings (CPH), bought a controlling stake in ANI which was then apparently sold two years later at a profit of $180 million.

3 It was suggested that there were subsequent losses for ANI since Mr Packer had ‘off loaded’ onto ANI an environmental engineering firm based…

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 Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Details

AGLC: Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2003] NSWSC 716
Case: [2003] NSWSC 716
Decision Date: 7 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim and tender a transcript of a radio broadcast in response to allegations of defamation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendants contested the plaintiff's request to amend the statement of claim and tender the transcript, arguing that such an amendment would be an abuse of the court process and potentially prejudicial to their case. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend the statement of claim and tender the transcript, and whether the jury should be discharged due to the potential prejudice.

The court considered the legal principles governing amendments to pleadings and the admissibility of evidence in defamation cases. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's right to amend a statement of claim, subject to the court's discretion and the principles of justice. However, the court also recognised that amendments may be refused if they are unduly delayed, would cause prejudice to the opposing party, or if the amendment would be futile. The court further considered the admissibility of the transcript, noting that in defamation cases, the content of the alleged defamatory material is a central issue and may be admitted as evidence.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to amend the statement of claim as the amendment would be an abuse of process and would cause significant prejudice to the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's proposed amendment was an attempt to introduce new evidence that was not previously disclosed and would unfairly surprise the defendants. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to tender the transcript as it would be prejudicial and would unfairly prejudice the defendants' right to a fair trial. The court ordered that the jury be discharged due to the potential prejudice caused by the proposed amendment and the admissibility of the transcript. The court held that the prejudice to the defendants outweighed any potential benefit to the plaintiff in allowing the amendment and the admissibility of the transcript.

Orders