Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 840

CITATION: Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWSC 840

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13099/93

HEARING DATE(S): 16/7/01 - 17/7/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 September 2001

PARTIES :

Tibor Timothy Vajda (Plaintiff)
Nine Network Australia Limited (Defendant 1)
Magda Bardy (Defendant 2)
TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (Defendant 3)
Endre Csapo (Defendant 4)

JUDGMENT OF: Brownie AJ at 1

COUNSEL : M Thangaraj (Plaintiff)
B McClintock SC with Mr Richardson (Defendants 1 & 3)
P Brereton SC (Defendant 4)

SOLICITORS: M Bertock (Plaintiff)
Gilbert & Tobin (Defendants 1 & 3)
A Torok (Defendant 4)

CATCHWORDS: Contempt of Court - Publication of matter allegedly having a tendency to deter the plaintiff from proceeding - No question of principle

CASES CITED: Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22

DECISION: Motion dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

26 SEPTEMBER 2001

BROWNIE AJ

13099/93 - TIBOR TIMOTHY VAJDA v NINE NETWORK & ORS
JUDGMENT

1 BROWNIE AJ: In 1993 two television programmes were published. The plaintiff sued the first defendant, Nine Network Australia Ltd (“Nine”), as the publisher of the programmes, and the second defendant, Ms Bardy, a person who spoke on the programmes, claiming damages for defamation. By his Further Amended Statement of Claim, filed in 1994, he asserted that the matter published by the defendants contained the following imputations, defamatory of him: that he is amongst the most evil of men; that he is a murderer; that he is a torturer; that he came to Australia as a fugitive from justice; that he knowingly sent to his death Istvan Somogyi (who was the first husband of Ms Bardy); and that he is unfit to be a citizen of Australia.

2 By its Defence, Nine admitted that it was the publisher of the programmes. It now says that in fact it was not: the publisher was a subsidiary company, TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (“TCN”). It says that as it was unimportant at the time it filed the Defence whether the plaintiff sued it or its subsidiary, it did not take the point, instead taking points of substance. However, the identity of the publisher of the 1998 programme, mentioned below, is important, and Nine now wishes to take the point that it was not the publisher of any of the programmes.

3 Nine and Ms Bardy have at all relevant times been represented by the one firm of solicitors, and by the same counsel. Nine and Ms Bardy pleaded in their respective Defences, amongst other matters, the defence of justification (that is, that the imputations said to have been conveyed by what they published concerning the plaintiff was substantially true, and that the publications were in the public interest).

4 The litigation proceeded slowly. Then, on or about 15 November 1998, TCN published a further television programme, in which various parts of the two earlier programmes were repeated, and amplified; and on 26 November 1998, an article concerning the plaintiff was published in…

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 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: [2001] NSWSC 840
Decision Date: 26 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vajda v Nine Network Australia Ltd, the court addressed the issue of contempt of court arising from the publication of content that allegedly had a tendency to deter the plaintiff from proceeding with legal action. The plaintiff, Vajda, sought to establish that the defendant's media publication had a prejudicial effect on his legal proceedings. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of contempt of court in the context of media publications and their potential impact on ongoing litigation. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the published content had a real and substantial tendency to interfere with the administration of justice by deterring the plaintiff from continuing his legal action. Additionally, the court assessed whether the publication was in contempt of court under the existing legal framework.

The court's reasoning focused on the specific content of the publication and its potential effect on the plaintiff's decision to proceed with his legal claims. The court examined the language used and the context in which it was published, considering whether it could be seen as having a tendency to deter the plaintiff. The Federal Court concluded that while the publication might have some influence, it did not meet the threshold to be considered contempt of court as it did not have a real and substantial tendency to deter the plaintiff. The court emphasised that the matter was one of principle, and the publication did not rise to the level of contempt as defined in the legal context.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's application for a finding of contempt was dismissed. The court found that the publication did not have a significant prejudicial effect on the plaintiff's decision to continue with his legal action, and therefore, did not constitute contempt of court. The final orders of the court reflected this outcome, with no further action required regarding the contempt application.

Orders