Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd v Whitlam, Edward Gough

The respondents, a group of journalists and media entities, appealed against an order made by the trial judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The order allowed the appellant, Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd, to serve a writ of summons out of the jurisdiction on Edward Gough Whitlam, one of the respondents, in the United States of America. The writ was part of a defamation action. The nature of the dispute was whether Whitlam could be considered a joint tortfeasor with other respondents who were within the jurisdiction.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Whitlam could be served out of the jurisdiction and considered a joint tortfeasor with the other respondents. The appellant argued that Whitlam was a joint tortfeasor with the other respondents because he participated in the same defamatory act, and therefore, service out of the jurisdiction was permissible. The respondents contended that Whitlam was not a joint tortfeasor and that serving the writ out of the jurisdiction was not allowed.

The court considered the applicable rules of service out of the jurisdiction and the principles of joint tortfeasors. The court found that Whitlam could not be considered a joint tortfeasor with the other respondents because he was not involved in the same defamatory act. The court also noted that service out of the jurisdiction was only permissible in limited circumstances, and the appellant had not demonstrated that those circumstances applied in this case. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order allowing service out of the jurisdiction. The appellant was granted leave to apply within 21 days to amend its application by applying for a stay of proceedings, and the further hearing of the appeal was adjourned to a date to be fixed.