Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1120
File number:
NSD 1086 of 2021
Judgment of:
JAGOT J
Date of judgment:
23 September 2022
Catchwords:
DEFAMATION — separate questions — whether TV broadcast and/or article conveyed defamatory meanings — where tone, film techniques and music created high drama and intrigue contributing to defamatory meanings — TV broadcast carried imputations — related article did not carry imputations due to qualified language of probe and investigation
NICHOLAS MCKENZIE (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 SEPTEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The separate questions contained in annexure A of the orders of 1 June 2022 be answered as set out in the reasons for judgment published today.
2.The parties are to confer and, within seven days, are to submit agreed or competing…
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 Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1120
Case
[2022] FCA 1120
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) involves a defamation case where the plaintiff, Mr Schiff, contends that a television broadcast and an article published by the defendant, Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, conveyed defamatory meanings. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where Justice Bromberg was tasked with determining whether the broadcast and article were defamatory. The court had to address two separate questions concerning the imputations made by the broadcast and the article, focusing on whether these communications conveyed defamatory meanings to the audience.
The primary legal issue was whether the television broadcast and the article published by the defendant contained imputations that were defamatory of the plaintiff. The court needed to consider the tone, film techniques, and music used in the broadcast, which created a high drama and intrigue, and assess if these elements contributed to defamatory meanings. Additionally, the court had to examine the language used in the article to determine if it carried defamatory imputations. The distinction between the broadcast and the article was crucial, as the court found that while the broadcast conveyed defamatory meanings, the article, due to its qualified language, did not.
The court held that the television broadcast conveyed defamatory meanings, as the tone, film techniques, and music heightened the drama and intrigue, contributing to the defamatory imputations. Conversely, the related article did not carry defamatory imputations due to the use of qualified language, which indicated a probe and investigation rather than a definitive conclusion. Justice Bromberg found that the broadcast carried imputations that the plaintiff had committed criminal offences and was unfit to hold public office, while the article, despite discussing similar topics, did not make such imputations due to its cautious language. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to carefully consider the context and language of each medium separately.
The orders of the court specified that the separate questions outlined in annexure A of the orders dated 1 June 2022 be answered in accordance with the reasons for judgment. The parties were required to confer and submit agreed or competing proposed orders for the future conduct of the matter within seven days. This directive was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2021, which governs the entry of orders in defamation cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The separate questions contained in annexure A of the orders of 1 June 2022 be answered as set out in the reasons for judgment published today.
2. The parties are to confer and, within seven days, are to submit agreed or competing proposed orders for the future conduct of the matter.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.