Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

In the matter of Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought damages for defamation following a broadcast by the defendants, who aired a program that imputed the plaintiffs caused a man-made disaster. The program suggested that the plaintiffs' failure to take steps to prevent a quarry wall from collapsing led to a wall of water destroying Grantham and killing twelve people. Additionally, the program implied the plaintiffs sought to conceal the truth about the disaster and refused to answer to the public. The sixth defendant, a journalist, was found to convey similar imputations through his words.

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.