Tucker v Echo Publication Pty Ltd - [2005] NSWSC 865

CITATION:
Tucker v Echo Publication Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] NSWSC 865
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23,24,,25,26,27, May 2005
7,8,9,10,14,15,16,22,23 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

1 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Patten AJ at 1

DECISION:
See paragraph - 124

LEGISLATION CITED:
Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED:
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons (1981) 1 NSWLR 36
Turner v MGM Pictures (1950) 1 All ER 449
Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) 50 ALJR 666
Bashford v Information Australia (Newletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 78 ALJR 346
Radio 2UE Pty Ltd & Anor v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448
Adam v Ward (1917) ACR 309
Broome v Cassell (1972) AC 1027

PARTIES:
Ross Tucker - Plaintiff
Echo Publication Pty Ltd - First Defendant
Fast Buck$ (aka) John Anderson - Second Defendant.

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20472 of 2000

COUNSEL:
Mr T Hale SC with M. S. White -and Mr R Foreman - Plaintiff
Mr B. A Connell - First Defendant
Fast Buck$ (aka) Mr J. Anderson - Second Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Elliot & Sochachi - Plaintiff
Banki, Haddock & Fiora - First Defendant
Fast Buck$ (aka) J. Anderson (Self) - Second Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 124 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

PATTEN AJ
1 September 2005

No: 20472 of 2000

ROSS TUCKER v ECHO PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD

& FAST BUCK

(aka JOHN ANDERSON)

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION:

1 His Honour: The Plaintiff (Mr Tucker) sues upon defamatory imputations contained in, what purports to be, an “advertisement” headed “The Ethics of Journalism” published in the newspaper Byron Shire Echo of 7 December 1999. A copy of the publication, hereinafter called “the subject article”, is attached to this judgment.

2 The First Defendant (Echo) was sued as the publisher of the defamatory imputations and the Second Defendant (Fast Buck$) as the author. Echo admitted publication and Mr Fast Buck$ admitted authorship.

3 At a hearing pursuant to s7 A of the Defamation Act (the Act), a jury found that the subject article contained the following two imputations defamatory of Mr Tucker:

1. That (Mr Tucker) acted dishonourably in his negotiations to settle a claim for compensation by a former employee in that he made an offer of settlement which, after it was accepted by the former employee, he refused to honour.

2. That (Mr Tucker) is a domineering employer in that he abuses employees by belittling them and shouting at them using obscene language.

4 A Mr Harold Ross (Mr Ross) was originally named as a plaintiff jointly with Mr Tucker, but the jury hearing the matter under s7A of the Act found that the subject article contained no imputation defamatory of him. Accordingly, he took no part, except as a witness, in the proceedings before me.

5 By its Amended Defence, Echo pleaded substantial truth under s15 of the Act; contextual truth under s16; qualified privilege under s22 and at…

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 Tucker v Echo Publication Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Tucker v Echo Publication Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 865
Case: [2005] NSWSC 865
Decision Date: 1 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tucker v Echo Publication Pty Ltd and Fast Buck$ (aka John Anderson) involved a defamation action brought by Ross Tucker against the publisher of the Byron Shire Echo and the author of a defamatory article published in the newspaper. The article contained two defamatory imputations: that Tucker acted dishonourably in his negotiations to settle a claim for compensation by a former employee and that he was a domineering employer who abused employees by belittling them and shouting at them using obscene language. The defendants admitted publication and authorship respectively. Tucker sought damages for the injury to his reputation and distress caused by the publication of the defamatory article.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the imputations were defamatory, whether they were false, and whether the defendants had any available defences. The court found that the imputations were defamatory and false. The defendants argued several defences, including substantial truth, contextual truth, qualified privilege, and comment, but the court rejected these defences.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the imputations were false because Tucker had always intended to pay the full amount owed to the former employee and had never behaved in a domineering or abusive manner towards his employees. The court also found that the defendants had failed to establish any of their defences. The court awarded Tucker damages for injury to his reputation, distress, and aggravated damages, as well as interest and costs.

The final orders of the court were that Tucker was awarded $139,329 in damages, including interest, against both defendants, and that both defendants were ordered to pay Tucker's costs. The court also ordered that exhibits could be returned.

Orders