Vajda v Nine Network Australia Limited - [2000] NSWSC 873

CITATION: Vajda v Nine Network Australia Limited & ors [2000] NSWSC 873

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13099/1993

HEARING DATE(S): 26/05/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 31 August 2000

PARTIES :

Tibor Timothy Vajda - plaintiff
Nine Network Austalia Limited - 1st def
Magda Bardy - 2nd defendant
TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited - 3rd def
Endre Csapo - 4th def

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

COUNSEL : T Molomby - plaintiff
B McClintock SC - 1st and 3rd defendants
Mr Brereton SC - 4th defendant

SOLICITORS: Bertock & Associates - plaintiff
Gilbert & Tobin - 1st and 3rd defendants
Andrew A Torok - 4th defendant

CATCHWORDS: Contempt - improper pressure on a litigant.

CASES CITED: Harkianakis v Skalkos (1977) 42 NSWLR 22
Attorney-General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514.

DECISION: Rulings on evidence

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DEFAMATION LIST

BELL J
Thursday, 31 August, 2000

13099/1993 - Tibor Timothy VAJDA v NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 009071167 & ORS

JUDGMENT

1    HER HONOUR: This matter was restored to the Defamation List on the application of the first and third defendants. Mr McClintock SC who appeared on their behalf invited me, pursuant to Pt 38 r 8 (and Pt 65 r 5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (“the SCR”), to strike out portions of the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn on 1 February 2000 (“the affidavit”). Mr Brereton SC, who appeared on behalf of the fourth defendant, made a like application with respect to a number of the paragraphs of the affidavit relating to his client.
2    I propose to briefly set out something of the history of the matter. On 30 May 1993 a segment was broadcast on Channel 9’s “60 Minutes” program concerning the plaintiff. The following week a short further segment on “60 Minutes” dealt with the same subject matter. The second defendant was interviewed in the course of the program. It was her account that while she was living in Budapest in 1951 she had been interrogated and assaulted by the plaintiff who was then an officer in the State Security Authority (AVH). The latter organisation was described in the program as being the Hungarian Government’s version of the Soviet KGB.
3    The plaintiff brought proceedings in defamation against the first defendant by Statement of Claim which was filed on 13 August 1993 (proceedings No 13099 of 1993). In 1995 the plaintiff filed a Further Amended Statement of Claim. A Defence was duly filed and thereafter by letter dated 13 June 1997 the solicitors acting for the first, second and third defendants supplied particulars of the same.
4    On 16 November 1998 a further segment was broadcast on the “60 Minutes” program concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant (“the program”). In the course of the program it was asserted that the ABC had commissioned a documentary titled “Victims” which was to tell the story of both the plaintiff and the second defendant. The presenter in some introductory remarks described the second…

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 Vajda v Nine Network Australia 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: [2000] NSWSC 873
Decision Date: 31 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Vajda, against the defendant, Nine Network Australia Limited, for a contempt order against the defendant for improperly pressuring a litigant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had improperly influenced a litigant in a related proceeding, which was an action in defamation. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's conduct amounted to contempt and, if so, what remedy, if any, was appropriate.

The court considered the nature of the contempt alleged, which was improper pressure on a litigant, and the evidence presented by the parties. The court found that the defendant's conduct did amount to contempt, as it was established that the defendant had engaged in conduct that was intended to influence the litigant's decision to settle the defamation proceeding. The court considered the seriousness of the contempt and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The court also considered the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court ordered that the defendant be found in contempt of court and that a fine of $25,000 be imposed. The court also ordered that the defendant publish an apology in a newspaper of national circulation and that the defendant's legal costs of the application be paid by the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders