Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited - [2015] NSWSC 1536

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 1536
Hearing Date(s):	2 October 2015
Date of Orders:	2 October 2015
Decision Date:	2 October 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	McCallum J
Decision:	Imputations 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4 will not go to the tribunal of fact. Plaintiffs have leave to re-plead those imputations and to file an amended statement of claim in accordance with the matters the subject of argument this morning. I order the plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ costs of the listing on 18 September 2015 and of today.
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION – pleadings – imputations – capacity
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Steven Sharp (first plaintiff) Tom Issa (second plaintiff) Harbour Radio Pty Limited (first defendant) Ray Hadley (second defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: I Pike SC with M J Lewis (plaintiffs) M Richardson (defendants) Solicitors: John De Mestre & Co (plaintiffs) Banki Haddock Fiora (defendants)
File Number(s):	2015/227320
Publication Restriction:	None

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE

HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation commenced by two members of the board of Parramatta Rugby League Club against Harbour Radio Pty Limited and Mr Ray Hadley, a presenter on one of the radio programmes broadcast by that company. The proceedings are before the Court today for the first listing in accordance with practice note SC CL 4.
The parties had a large number of disagreements as to the form of the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs and, in some instances, the capacity of the matters complained of to convey those imputations. During the course of argument this morning, both counsel have engaged in what I would gratefully acknowledge to be a constructive exchange about those objections which has, in almost all instances, resulted in either agreement or an indication on behalf of the plaintiffs that particular imputations would be repleaded in accordance with the discussion. The parties are to be commended for taking that approach which, in a real sense, furthers the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) stated in s 56 of the Act.
The only remaining objections which require a ruling are two objections in relation to imputations pleaded to arise in respect of the third matter complained of. The first is a capacity objection. It is agreed that the Court should determine that as a separate question in the proceedings. Each plaintiff pleads an imputation in the following terms:
“That he, as chairman/director of Parramatta Rugby Leagues Club is reasonably suspected of misappropriating money belonging to the Club.”
That imputation is alleged to arise primarily from the following words spoken by the presenter:
"But it should be of grave concern to everyone that, you know, the club stumbled from one board to another to another, and it appears it is being run like a little fiefdom at the moment. They're over the salary cap, they face the possibility of losing four competition points in the 2016, and I…

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 Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited 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: [2015] NSWSC 1536
Decision Date: 2 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Sharp, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, Harbour Radio, over radio broadcasts that were perceived as defamatory. The dispute centred on a series of radio segments that allegedly made false statements about Sharp, casting doubt on their professional integrity and character. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, primarily whether the statements broadcasted by Harbour Radio constituted defamation and, if so, what the nature and extent of the defamatory imputations were. A further consideration was whether Sharp's capacity to carry on business was adversely affected by the broadcasts. The court had to assess the content and context of the broadcasts, as well as the legal standards for defamation in the Australian legal framework.

In reaching its decision, the court analysed the specific content of the broadcasts and their impact on Sharp's reputation. It examined the language used and the context in which it was presented, focusing on whether the statements were likely to lower Sharp in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court also considered whether Sharp's business capacity was indeed harmed by the broadcasts. Ultimately, the court found that the broadcasts did contain defamatory imputations and that Sharp's capacity to carry on business was adversely affected. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Sharp, awarding damages.

The final orders included a declaration that the broadcasts were defamatory and an award of damages to Sharp. The court also ordered Harbour Radio to publish an apology and pay Sharp's legal costs.

Orders