SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Wagner & Ors v Nine Network Australia & Ors [2019] QSC 284
PARTIES:
DENIS WAGNER
(first plaintiff)
JOHN WAGNER
(second plaintiff)
NEILL WAGNER
(third plaintiff)
JOE WAGNER
(fourth plaintiff)v
NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 008 685 407)
TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD
(ACN 001 549 560)(first defendant)
QUEENSLAND TELEVISION LIMITED
(ACN 009 674 373)(second defendant)
WIN TELEVISION QLD PTY LTD
(ACN 009 697 198)(third defendant)
NINEMSN PTY LTD
(ACN 077 753 461)(fourth defendant)
NICHOLAS CHARLES CATER(fifth defendant)(sixth defendant)
FILE NO:
11789 of 2015
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
22 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 September 2019 (Brisbane), 14 and 15 October 2019 (Toowoomba)
Supplementary written submissions 28 October and 1 November 2019
JUDGE:
Applegarth J
ORDERS:
Each plaintiff’s damages against the first to fifth defendants are assessed in the sum of $600,000. Interest on damages to awarded in the amount of $63,000.
Each plaintiff’s damages against the sixth defendant are assessed in the sum of $300,000. Interest on damages to awarded in the amount of $31,500.
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT – IN GENERAL – where a jury found that a 60 Minutes program imputed that the plaintiffs caused a man-made disaster and that the disaster was the result of their failing to take steps that they should have to prevent a quarry wall on property they owned from collapsing, causing a devastating wall of water to destroy Grantham and kill twelve people – where the jury found that the sixth defendant, an experienced journalist who featured in the program, conveyed a similar imputation by his words – where the program also was found to impute that the plaintiffs sought to conceal the truth about the role their quarry played in the flood and that the plaintiffs disgracefully refused to answer to the public for their failure to take steps to prevent the quarry wall they owned from collapsing and causing the flood – what award of damages should be given to each plaintiff against the Nine Network defendants and against Mr Cater
DEFAMATION – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT – SPECIAL MATTERS – AGGRAVATION – CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES – where the plaintiffs claim aggravated compensatory damages on the basis that the defendants engaged in conduct that was improper, unjustifiable or lacking in bona fides – where the defendants made inadequate attempts to ascertain the truth – where the defendants possessed information which contradicted allegations in the program but did not report it – where the defendants made belated attempts to seek a response from the plaintiffs and did not include in the program any part of a statement issued by the plaintiffs – where, despite the findings of a Commission of Inquiry which in October 2015 discredited the allegations in the program, the defendants pleaded a defence of justification for seven months, withdrawing it in November 2018…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QSC 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with assessing the general damages due to the plaintiffs for defamation, considering factors such as the nature of the imputations, the conduct of the defendants, and the effect of prior litigation. The plaintiffs argued for aggravated compensatory damages based on the defendants' conduct, including inadequate attempts to ascertain the truth and failure to report contradictory information. The court also considered whether previous defamation awards and public vindication might mitigate the damages.
The court found that the defendants' conduct was improper and lacking in bona fides, warranting aggravated compensatory damages. Despite the findings of a Commission of Inquiry that discredited the allegations, the defendants maintained a defence of justification for seven months. The plaintiffs' previous awards and public vindication were considered in mitigation, but the court determined they did not fully offset the harm caused by the defamatory broadcast. The court awarded each plaintiff $600,000 against the first to fifth defendants and $300,000 against the sixth defendant, along with interest on the damages.
The orders of the court included the assessment of damages against the defendants and the awarding of interest on the damages. Each plaintiff received $600,000 in damages against the first to fifth defendants, with interest of $63,000. Each plaintiff also received $300,000 in damages against the sixth defendant, with interest of $31,500. The court further ordered that costs should follow the event, with the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Each plaintiff’s damages against the first to fifth defendants are assessed in the sum of $600,000. Interest on damages to awarded in the amount of $63,000.
Each plaintiff’s damages against the sixth defendant are assessed in the sum of $300,000. Interest on damages to awarded in the amount of $31,500.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.