Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2002] NSWSC 1031

CITATION: Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 1031

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20206/02

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

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 November 2002

PARTIES :

Paul George Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

JUDGMENT OF: Cripps AJ

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

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff- Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers
Defendant - Mr Michael Martin, ABC legal

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - TV program in three segments - defamatory imputation said to arise out of segment two - should the plaintiff be compelled to plead the whole program.

CASES CITED: Morgan Tsvangirai v The Special Broadcasting Service [Unreported, NSWSC, 14 June 2002

DECISION: The whole of the program be pleaded. The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

- 1 -

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

CRIPPS AJ

Paul George READING –v- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

1 HIS HONOUR: On 7 April 1997, the defendant published a “Four Corners” program. It was in three segments and lasted approximately forty-five minutes. The first segment (about thirty minutes) was concerned with what were said to be attempts by Mr Kerry Packer and/or persons on his behalf to ensure that he and Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd (CPH) together with Circus to ensure that his rival, the combination of Showboat –Leighton syndicate did not succeed.

2 The second segment (about ten minutes) concerned the relationship between CPH and ANI Limited (ANI), in which reference was made to payments of money “approved by Kerry Packer” to two members of the ANI board, of which one was the plaintiff, prior to the board deciding to buy a company owned by CPH and which ultimately caused ANI to loose many millions of dollars by which time CPH had long since ceased to be a shareholder.

3 The third segment (about five minutes) was concerned with attempts by Mr Packer and/or Consolidated Press Holdings to gain control of the Fairfax Companies, and segments were presented showing Mr Packer arguing vigorously with members of a Senate Inquiry.

4 The question in the present case is whether the plaintiff should be compelled, in light of the imputations alleged, to plead the entire “Four Corners” program dealing with the activities of Mr Packer and his Companies and those companies associated with them, or whether it is permissible for him to plead just the segment that referred to the ANI transaction.

5 The Plaintiff, Mr Redding has taken proceedings, alleging that he was defamed. The imputations alleged are:

(a) that he corruptly accepted a bribe of $2 million;

(b). he dishonestly and in breach of his duties as a director of ANI, voted for ANI to make a disastrously bad decision to buy ABT, because Kerry Packer, whose company owned ABT, agreed to pay him $2 million;

(c) that as a director of ANI, the plaintiff dishonestly changed calculations valuing the deal for ANI to buy ABT, so that the deal would not…

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 Reading 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

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: [2002] NSWSC 1031
Decision Date: 5 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Reading, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Mr Reading alleged that a three-part television program broadcast by ABC defamed him. He claimed that defamatory imputations arose specifically from the second segment of the program. The central issue was whether the plaintiff should be compelled to plead the entire program or just the segment from which the alleged defamatory imputations emanated.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff could restrict his defamation claim to a particular segment of the program or if he was obligated to plead the entire program to adequately address the alleged defamation. The legal question centred on the extent to which a plaintiff must demonstrate the context of a broadcast to substantiate their claim when the alleged defamatory content is part of a larger program.

In its judgment, the court held that Mr Reading was required to plead the entire program, not just the segment in which the defamatory imputations were said to occur. The court reasoned that a defamatory statement must be understood within the context of the whole program, as the meaning of the imputations could be influenced by the content of the entire broadcast. This approach ensures that the plaintiff provides a comprehensive account of the alleged defamatory matter, allowing the court to fully assess the context and impact of the imputations. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the broader context in defamation cases involving multi-part broadcasts.

Orders