Scott v Jones & Anor - [2002] NSWSC 210

CITATION: Scott v Jones & Anor [2002] NSWSC 210

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20883 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 March 2002

PARTIES :

LOLA ANN SCOTT
(Plaintiff)
v
ALAN JONES
(First Defendant)
RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
S Littlemore Q.C.
(Plaintiff)
T Blackburn
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Walter Madden Jenkins
(Plaintiff)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - identification - imputations - form and capacity - aggravated damages - deficient particulars

CASES CITED: Dojas v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 398
Cinevest Limited & Anor v Yirandi Productions Limited & Anor [2001] NSWCA 68
Moore & Brown v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1985) A Def R 50,010
Moroney v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1138
Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (Hunt J, unreported, 20 February 1980)

DECISION: See paragraph 46

DLJ: 1

[2002] NSWSC 210

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
D efamation list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 22 MARCH 2002

20883 of 2001

LOLA ANN SCOTT
(Plaintiff)

v

ALAN JONES
(First Defendant)

RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Defamation – identification – imputations – form and capacity – aggravated damages – deficient particulars)

1 By a Statement of Claim filed on 7 November 2001 the plaintiff seeks damages from the defendants for defamation said to arise out of two radio broadcasts, the first on or about 23 July 2001 (in which the plaintiff is not named), the second on or about 9 August 2001 (in which the plaintiff is named).

2 The first objection taken by the defendants is as to the asserted deficiency in the particularisation of the plaintiff’s case on identification with respect to the first matter complained of.

3 The particulars identification set out in the Statement of Claim are:

3(a) The first matter did not name the plaintiff, but referred to her as a ‘very senior police officer’; a member of a GREAT panel hearing an appeal against the appointment of a detective Sergeant to a western Sydney Police Station; one of the Police Service’s highest-ranking officers; a person promoted during the Ryan years; earning a high salary; being a Commander; working at Police Headquarters.

(b) The plaintiff alone bears all the qualities detailed by the first defendant in the first matter.

(c) Those to whom the plaintiff was identified by reference to the matters set out at (a) above include (but are not limited to) the entire membership of the New South Wales Police Service; the entire journalistic staff of the mass media of New South Wales; and all those members of the general public who read, hear and watch mass media coverage of police issues and women’s employment issues.

(d) On or about 9 August 2001, the first defendant emailed one of his correspondents in answer to a query about the matter complained of in paragraph 3 herein the following words: ‘To be absolutely blunt with…

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 Scott v Jones & Anor

Details

AGLC: Scott v Jones [2002] NSWSC 210
Case: [2002] NSWSC 210
Decision Date: 22 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Scott v Jones, the plaintiff, Scott, brought an action against the defendants, Jones and another, for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had published defamatory statements about him, resulting in harm to his reputation and emotional distress. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently identified the defamatory imputations made against him, the form and capacity in which they were made, and whether he was entitled to aggravated damages.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's statement of claim contained adequate particulars of the imputations and their form and capacity. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff's claim for aggravated damages was supported by sufficient evidence of the harm caused by the defamatory statements. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's particulars were deficient, and therefore, the claim should be dismissed. The court had to balance the need for detailed particulars with the principle that a plaintiff should not be required to plead every possible detail of the alleged defamation.

The court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim contained sufficient particulars of the defamatory imputations, their form and capacity. The court held that the plaintiff had adequately identified the statements that were defamatory and the manner in which they were published. Regarding the claim for aggravated damages, the court found that the plaintiff had provided evidence of the harm caused by the defamatory statements, including expert evidence of the impact on his mental health. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to aggravated damages, considering the severity and impact of the defamatory statements on his reputation and emotional well-being.

The court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's claim for insufficient particulars. It allowed the plaintiff's claim to proceed to trial, including the claim for aggravated damages. The court ordered the defendants to file a defence within a specified timeframe. The case will now proceed to trial to determine the merits of the plaintiff's defamation claim and the appropriate quantum of damages.

Orders