Robinson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [2004] QCA 319

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robinson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2004] QCA 319

PARTIES:

ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON
(plaintiff/appellant)
v

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 137 of 2004
Writ No 597 of 1994

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from Interlocutory Decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made to allow appeal in part; Chesterman J dissenting as to further order

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed in part;

2.   The plaintiff is required to amend paragraph
     3 of the Amended Statement of Claim in accordance

     with paragraph [92] of these reasons

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where both plaintiff and defendant attached copies of the transcript of the subject television broadcast to their originating pleadings – where the plaintiff then amended his originating pleading and did not attach the subject transcript – where the learned primary judge ordered that the plaintiff attach a copy of the subject transcript to the amended pleading – whether the learned primary judge was correct in ordering the plaintiff to attach the subject transcript

DEFAMATION – PARTICULARS – OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM OR DECLARATION – INNUENDO – appeal against “strike in” application – where defamatory material was a segment of current affairs television programme – whether required to plead whole of the words published and the images and sounds of the segment – test to be applied – whether any of the omitted parts are reasonably capable of materially altering or qualifying the complexion of the pleaded imputation

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(1), R 149, r 171, r 375, r 378, r 379, r 444

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Australian Newspaper Co Ltd v Bennett [1894] AC 284, cited
Chalmers v Payne (1835) 2 Cr M & R 156; 150 ER 67, cited
Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, cited
Cohen v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1965] NSWR 1484, cited
Cooke v Hughes (1824) Ry & Mood 112; 171 ER 961, cited
Foreign Media v Konstantinidis [2003] NSWCA 161 (23 June 2003), cited
Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd & Anor [1980] 2 NSWLR 410, cited
Gutnick v Dow Jones [2001] VSC 305, cited
Lang v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd [1970] 2 NSWR 408, cited
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] 53 ALJR 243, cited
Nevill v Fine Art and General Insurance Co Ltd [1897] AC 68, cited
Plato Films Ltd & Ors v Speidel [1961] 1 All ER 876; [1961] AC 1090, discussed
Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc & Ors v Trelford & Ors [1986] QB 1000, cited
R v Brereton (1725) 8 Mod 328; 88 ER 235, cited
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor v Parker

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 Robinson 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: [2004] QCA 319
Decision Date: 3 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robinson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the plaintiff, Mr. Robinson, initiated a defamation claim against the defendant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The dispute centred on a segment of a current affairs television programme broadcast by the defendant, which Mr. Robinson alleged was defamatory. Both parties submitted copies of the broadcast transcript with their originating pleadings. However, when Mr. Robinson amended his pleading, he omitted the transcript, prompting the primary judge to order its reattachment. The court was tasked with determining the correctness of this order and the appropriate pleading requirements for defamatory material in this context.

The legal issues revolved around the necessity of attaching a full transcript of the broadcast to the pleadings and the requirement to plead the entire defamatory material, including the words, images, and sounds of the segment. Specifically, the court needed to apply the test to ascertain whether any omitted parts were reasonably capable of materially altering or qualifying the pleaded imputation. The primary question was whether Mr. Robinson's amended pleading sufficiently captured the defamatory content, given the omission of the full transcript.

In examining the matter, the court found that the primary judge's order for Mr. Robinson to attach the omitted transcript was not erroneous. The court held that for defamation claims, it is often necessary to attach the full content of the defamatory material to ensure clarity and precision in the pleading. Additionally, the court emphasised that when the defamatory material consists of a broadcast segment, it is generally required to plead the entire words, images, and sounds. However, the court clarified that not every part of the omitted material must be pleaded if it does not materially alter or qualify the pleaded imputation. In this instance, the court determined that certain parts of the omitted transcript were indeed crucial to understanding the full context of the imputation.

The court allowed the appeal in part and required Mr. Robinson to amend his pleading to include the necessary parts of the omitted transcript as outlined in the judgment. This amendment was to ensure that the pleading adequately captured the defamatory content without overburdening the process with unnecessary details.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part;

2. The plaintiff is required to amend paragraph

3 of the Amended Statement of Claim in accordance

with paragraph [92] of these reasons

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Robinson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2004] QCA 319
PARTIES:	ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON (plaintiff/appellant) v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 137 of 2004 Writ No 597 of 1994
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from Interlocutory Decision
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made to allow appeal in part; Chesterman J dissenting as to further order
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed in part; 2. The plaintiff is required to amend paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with paragraph [92] of these reasons
CATCHWORDS:	DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND – where both plaintiff and defendant attached copies of the transcript of the subject television broadcast to their originating pleadings – where the plaintiff then amended his originating pleading and did not attach the subject transcript – where the learned primary judge ordered that the plaintiff attach a copy of the subject transcript to the amended pleading – whether the learned primary judge was correct in ordering the plaintiff to attach the subject transcript DEFAMATION – PARTICULARS – OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM OR DECLARATION – INNUENDO – appeal against “strike in” application – where defamatory material was a segment of current affairs television programme – whether required to plead whole of the words published and the images and sounds of the segment – test to be applied – whether any of the omitted parts are reasonably capable of materially altering or qualifying the complexion of the pleaded imputation Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(1), R 149, r 171, r 375, r 378, r 379, r 444 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Australian Newspaper Co Ltd v Bennett [1894] AC 284, cited Chalmers v Payne (1835) 2 Cr M & R 156; 150 ER 67, cited Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, cited Cohen v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1965] NSWR 1484, cited Cooke v Hughes (1824) Ry & Mood 112; 171 ER 961, cited Foreign Media v Konstantinidis [2003] NSWCA 161 (23 June 2003), cited Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd & Anor [1980] 2 NSWLR 410, cited Gutnick v Dow Jones [2001] VSC 305, cited Lang v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd [1970] 2 NSWR 408, cited Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] 53 ALJR 243, cited Nevill v Fine Art and General Insurance Co Ltd [1897] AC 68, cited Plato Films Ltd & Ors v Speidel [1961] 1 All ER 876; [1961] AC 1090, discussed Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc & Ors v Trelford & Ors [1986] QB 1000, cited R v Brereton (1725) 8 Mod 328; 88 ER 235, cited Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor v Parker