Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 9)

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 9) involved an application by the plaintiff, Mr Rush, for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, Nationwide, from republishing defamatory imputations contained in articles published by Nationwide. The application was brought following a defamation judgment in favour of Mr Rush against Nationwide. The court was required to decide whether a permanent injunction should be granted, considering factors such as the risk of republication, the public interest in free speech, and the potential hardship to Mr Rush if further defamation proceedings were required.

The court reasoned that while some of the media coverage had deprived Mr Rush of the benefits of his defamation victory, this did not necessarily mean a permanent injunction was warranted. The post-judgment articles published by Nationwide, which criticised the judgment, were not found to simply repeat or republish the defamatory imputations, but rather were reports or opinions about the judgment. Although Nationwide might publish similar articles in the future, it was not concluded that these would necessarily republish the defamatory imputations. Additionally, the public interest in free speech weighed against granting the injunction, as Nationwide had a right to criticise the judgment. The court concluded that the discretionary factors against granting the injunction outweighed the potential hardship to Mr Rush of having to commence further proceedings.

The court dismissed Mr Rush's application for a permanent injunction. It noted that no specific costs order was requested by either party and considered making no order as to costs, but invited the parties to file brief written submissions if they wished to argue for a costs order. The court vacated certain previous orders and outlined the procedure for entry of the new orders.

The court did not need to conclusively determine the operation of section 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) in this case, as it was sufficient to note that Mr Rush might need to seek leave of the court to commence further defamation proceedings depending on the nature of any republication. The court also noted that other discretionary considerations might apply in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction, such as the potential for injustice, hardship to the defendant, and the public interest in free speech.