Sleeman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2004] NSWSC 954

Reported Decision:
(2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-773

Supreme Court

CITATION: SLEEMAN v NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD [2004] NSWSC 954 revised - 4/11/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 18-22 November 2002; 3 December 2002; further submissions 25 March 2003 and 4 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. In respect of the cause of action constituted by the imputation "The plaintiff is a dishonest journalist" I award the plaintiff a verdict of $250,000.00.; 2. In respect of the cause of action constituted by the imputation "The plaintiff in writing a piece on Ian Thorpe deliberately gave the false impression that he had spoken to Ian Thorpe recently and at length" I award the plaintiff a verdict of $150,000.00.; 3. I award interest at the rate of 2 per cent for the period 8 June 2000 to 8 October 2004, that is 4 1/3 years, $34,660.00.; 4. I enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $434,660.00.; 5. I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.; 6. I order the return to the plaintiff of the following exhibits: exhibit C, exhibit D, exhibit P, exhibit S. Otherwise I order that the exhibits be retained for 28 days. In the event of an appeal being instituted in accordance with the Rules of Court the exhibits are to be retained until further order of this Court or the Court of Appeal.

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - principal imputation of dishonesty in a journalist - defence of justification - contextual truth - comment of servant or agent of defendant - comment of a stranger

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 s15, s16, s33, s34, s46A

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons (1993) 187 CLR 44
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Crawford v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1989) A Def R 50,040
Hanrahan v Ainsworth (1990) 22 NSWLR 73
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 126
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor v Jones [2004] NSWCA 205
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake; David Syme & Co v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1135
Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Perkins (1998) 45 NSWLR 340
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 201 ALR 184; [2003] HCA 52

PARTIES :

RICHARD SLEEMAN
(Plaintiff)
v
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20256 OF 2000

COUNSEL:
C Evatt / J Henness
(Plaintiff)
T Blackburn SC / D Sibtain
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Peter R Murphy & Co
(Plaintiff)
Blake Dawson Waldron
(Defendant)

[2004] NSWSC 954

IN THE SUPREME…

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 Sleeman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd 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] NSWSC 954
Decision Date: 15 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defamation claim brought by Sleeman against Nationwide News Pty Ltd. Sleeman alleged that statements made in a newspaper published by Nationwide were defamatory and conveyed an imputation of dishonesty. The court was tasked with determining whether the imputations were made by a servant or agent of the defendant, or by a stranger, and if the defence of justification could be upheld. The High Court of Australia heard the case and considered the implications of the defamatory comments on the plaintiff's reputation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defamatory imputations were made by a person acting as an agent or servant of the defendant, or by a stranger. The court was required to assess the context and content of the comments to determine their source and consider whether the defence of justification was available. This defence would require the plaintiff to prove that the imputations were substantially true, and that the defendant had acted with reasonable care in publishing the comments. The court also needed to consider whether the comments were made in good faith, and whether the plaintiff's reputation was damaged by the publication.

The court found that the comments were made by a stranger, and not by a servant or agent of the defendant. The court held that the defendant was not vicariously liable for the defamatory comments. In terms of the defence of justification, the court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proving that the imputations were substantially true. The court emphasised that the truth of the comments needed to be established in the context in which they were made. The court also found that the defendant had not acted with reasonable care in publishing the comments, as they had not made inquiries to verify the truth of the statements. The court held that the plaintiff's reputation had been damaged by the publication of the comments.

The court ordered that Nationwide News Pty Ltd pay damages to Sleeman for the defamation caused by the publication of the comments. The court also ordered that Nationwide News Pty Ltd pay costs associated with the proceedings. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing the source of defamatory comments and the need for defendants to act with reasonable care in publishing potentially defamatory material. The court's emphasis on the contextual truth of the comments also serves as a reminder that the truth of a statement must be considered in the context in which it was made.

Orders