TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning

Case [2002] NSWCA 82

Reported Decision:

 (2002) 54 NSWLR 333
(2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-649

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LIMITED v HENRY ALFRED ANNING [2002] NSWCA 82
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40232/01
HEARING DATE(S): 21/11/01
JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 2002

PARTIES :
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Henry Alfred Anning (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 191; Grove J at 192
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		DC 70238/98; DC 3218/00
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 English DCJ
COUNSEL: B R McClintock SC / J Sleight (Appellant)
S Littlemore QC / N Adams (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Gilbert & Tobin (Appellant)
Priority Legal Services (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: TORTS - trespass to land - whether implied licence to enter - whether express licence to enter - where journalist and cameramen entered land with cameras rolling - scope of damages - consequential damages - whether damages for personal injury (mental trauma) recoverable - exemplary damages - whether necessary to separately identify amount - aggravated damages - TORTS - trespass to land - expert evidence - whether open to accept evidence - whether absence of cross-examination precluded acceptance - whether inadequate reasons for preferring evidence
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1984
Evidence Act 1995
Supreme Court Act 1970
CASES CITED:
 ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; 76 ALJR 1
Adams v Kennedy (2000) 49 NSWLR 78
Allsop v Allsop (1860) 5 H & N 534 at 536; 157 ER 1292
Anderson v Buckton (1719) 1 Strange 192; 93 ER 467
Anderson v Fairfax (1883) 4 NSWR 183
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2000) 23 WAR 35
Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] 2 NZLR 110
Baker v Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033
Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338
Barker v The Queen (1994) 54 FCR 451
Bennett v Allcott (1787) 2 Tr 166; 100 ER 90
Bond v Kelly (1873) 4 Australian Jurist Reports 153
Bracegirdle v Orford (1813) 2 M & S 77; 105 ER 311
Bruce v Rawlins (1770) 3 Wils KB 61; 95 ER 934
Brunner v Williams [1975] Crim LR 250
Bunyan v Jordan (1936-1937) 57 CLR 1
Burdett v Abbot (1811) 14 East 1; 104 ER 501
Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 852
Coco v The Queen (1993-1994) 179 CLR 427
Daubney v Cooper (1830) 10 B & C 830; 109 ER 657
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Ellison v L [1998] 1 NZLR 416
Emcorp Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1988] 2 Qd R 169
Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils 275; 95 ER 807
Environment Protection Authority v Anning (1998) 100 LGERA 354
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1
HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414
Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1
Healing (Sales) Pty…

Continue reading TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning [2002] NSWCA 82
Case
[2002] NSWCA 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning concerned a claim for trespass to land brought by the respondent, Mr. Anning, against the appellant, TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd. Mr. Anning alleged that journalists and cameramen employed by Channel Nine had trespassed on his property by entering his land with cameras rolling, thereby causing him distress and injury. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the journalists and cameramen had impliedly or expressly been granted a licence to enter Mr. Anning's land, and if not, whether their entry constituted trespass. Further, the court was required to determine the scope of damages recoverable for such a trespass, specifically whether damages for personal injury, including mental trauma, were available, and whether exemplary and aggravated damages could be awarded. The admissibility and weight of expert evidence, particularly in the absence of cross-examination, also formed a key part of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature of implied licences to enter land, particularly in the context of media reporting. It held that while there is an implied licence for members of the public to approach a person's home for legitimate purposes, such as delivering mail or a visitor, this licence does not extend to entering private property with cameras rolling for the purpose of confronting or interviewing the occupier. The court found that the entry by Channel Nine's employees exceeded the scope of any implied licence and constituted a trespass. Regarding damages, the court affirmed that damages for consequential mental trauma are recoverable in trespass to land, and that exemplary damages may be awarded where the trespass is of a flagrant or contumelious character. The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence, finding that it was open to the trial judge to accept expert evidence even without cross-examination, provided the evidence was otherwise sound.

The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the finding of trespass and the award of damages, though it remitted the matter for further consideration of the quantum of damages. The parties were directed to bring in short minutes to reflect the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Parties to bring in short minutes to reflect reasons

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.