Richard Lim v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2006] NTMC 71

CITATION: [2006] NTMC 071

PARTIES: RICHARD LIM
Plaintiff
v
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
FIRST DEFENDANT
&
CLARE MARTIN
SECOND DEFENDANT
&
FRANCES KILGARIFF
THIRD DEFENDANT

TITLE OF COURT: LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION: CIVIL
FILE NO(s): 20516102
DELIVERED ON: 29.8.06 (by posting)
DELIVERED AT: DARWIN (by posting)
HEARING DATE(s): 4.8.06
JUDGMENT OF: DAYNOR TRIGG SM
CATCHWORDS:

Defamation pleadings
Application to strike out

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr Christrup
1st Defendant: Mr Dawson
2nd Defendant: Mr Anderson
3rd Defendant: Ms Spurr
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Morgan Buckley Lawyers
1st Defendant: ABC Legal Services
2nd Defendant: Solicitor for the NT
3rd Defendant: Halfpennys Lawyers

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2006] NTMC 071
Number of paragraphs: 41

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20516102
[2006] NTMC 071

BETWEEN:

Richard Lim
Plaintiff

AND:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
1st Defendant
Clare Martin
2nd Defendant
Frances Kilgariff
3rd Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 29 August 2006 by posting to solicitors)

Mr TRIGG SM:

1. This proceeding commenced on 28 June 2005 when the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim in the Local Court in Alice Springs. The plaintiff claims that he was defamed in a radio broadcast on the morning of 12 April 2005 (the first broadcast), in a radio broadcast in the afternoon of 12 April 2005 (the second broadcast), and in a television broadcast at 7pm on 12 April 2005 (the third broadcast).

2. The first broadcast allegedly involved an exchange with the second defendant that was allegedly broadcast during a programme entitled “morning programme with Meredith Campbell”. The second broadcast allegedly involved an exchange with the third defendant that was allegedly broadcast during the “PM” programme. The third broadcast allegedly involved an exchange with both the second and third defendants which was allegedly broadcast during the 7pm television news.

3. The second defendant filed a Notice of Defence on 22 September 2005. The third defendant filed a Notice of Defence on 23 September 2005, but this was then soon replaced by an Amended Notice of Defence filed on 10 October 2005.

4. The plaintiff filed an Amended Statement of Claim on 12 April 2006.

5. The first defendant (the applicant in the current interlocutory application) has not filed a Defence, but no point was taken in this regard before me.

6. On 26 April 2006 the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application seeking the following orders:

1. That, pursuant to Rule 10.04, the plaintiff’s claim be struck out, or alternatively that the following paragraphs of the plaintiff’s Amended Particulars of Claim be struck out: paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14.3, 15.3, 15.4 and 16.

2. Further or in the alternative, that, pursuant to Rule 28.02, the following paragraphs of the plaintiff’s Amended Particulars of Claim be struck out: paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4 and 16.

3. Such further or other orders as the Court sees fit.

4. Costs.

7. Although this application was filed in Alice Springs and was sought to be heard…

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 Richard Lim 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: [2006] NTMC 71
Decision Date: 29 August 2006 by posting to solicitors

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Richard Lim, sought to strike out the respondent's statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action for defamation. The respondent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, alleged that Lim had defamed a third party in a series of media broadcasts. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's pleadings were sufficient to establish a cause of action for defamation and whether they disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court considered whether the respondent's pleadings sufficiently identified the defamatory imputations, the publication of those imputations, and the resulting damage to the third party's reputation. The applicant argued that the respondent's pleadings were vague, ambiguous, and failed to provide specific details about the alleged defamatory statements.

The court found that the respondent's pleadings, while not perfect, were sufficient to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The respondent had identified the alleged defamatory imputations, the publication of those imputations, and the resulting damage to the third party's reputation. The court held that the pleadings were sufficient to allow the applicant to respond to the allegations and that the matter should proceed to trial. The court rejected the applicant's application to strike out the statement of claim.

The court's decision was that the respondent's statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for defamation. The court ordered that the application to strike out the statement of claim be dismissed. The case will now proceed to trial, where the respondent will need to prove the allegations of defamation against the applicant.

Orders