Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - [2009] NSWSC 508

CITATION: Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 508

HEARING DATE(S): 14.04.09, 15.04.09

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: Par 53

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - interrogatories - defendant's objections to answer - whether interrogatories relevant to issues of statutory qualified privilege and malice - whether necessary that answers be ordered - general principles considered

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Defamation Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Boyle v Downs [1979] 1 NSWLR 192
Conde v 2KY Broadcasters Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 221
Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 587
Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWCA 37
Gross v Weston & Anor [2007] NSWCA 1; (2007) 69 NSWLR 279
Hawke v Tamworth Newspaper Co Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 699
Howard v Nationwide Publicity Services [Supreme Court of New South Wales, CLD14490/84, Hunt J, 26 February 1987, Unreported]

PARTIES: Tania Zaetta - plaintiff
Nationwide News Pty Limited - defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20262/08

COUNSEL: A Henskens - plaintiff
T Blackburn SC/T Maltz - defendant

SOLICITORS: Kalantzis Lawyers - plaintiff
Blake Dawson - defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

9 June 2009

20262/08 Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: This is an application by the plaintiff in an action for defamation for an order that the defendant answer certain interrogatories, and gives better answer to other interrogatories.

2 The relevant background appears from the pleadings.

3 The statement of claim pleads that on about 22 May 2008 the defendant published in the newspaper “The Daily Telegraph” an article under the heading “Defence Sex Scandal” which conveyed imputations defamatory of the plaintiff. It included (Particulars par 5(b)(ii)) a claim for aggravated damages by reason of the alleged republication by the defendant of the matter complained of and the defamatory imputations in the newspapers “The Adelaide Advertiser”, “The Hobart Mercury” and “The Northern Territory News”, and on the “The Daily Telegraph” website, the “News.com.au” website, and the “Perth Now” website.

4 The defendant has pleaded only defences of statutory qualified privilege (Defamation Act 2005, s 30) and common law qualified privilege, and particulars of mitigation of damages.

5 In her reply, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was actuated by express malice in the publication of the matter complained of. The particulars include assertions that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the imputations were false; that the occasions of publication and republication were used for the purpose of attacking and discrediting the plaintiff; and that the defendant was motivated by ill will and spite towards the plaintiff.

6 The interrogatories challenged fall into a number of categories referable to different issues identifiable from the pleadings. In almost all cases the objection to answer was on grounds that the “… interrogatory is vexatious and oppressive and does not relate to a matter at issue in this proceeding”.

7 Under Uniform…

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 Zaetta v Nationwide News 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

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: [2009] NSWSC 508
Decision Date: 9 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zaetta v Nationwide News Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff seeking to establish defamation against the defendant, Nationwide News. The plaintiff sought to uncover the defendant's intentions and motives through interrogatories, which the defendant objected to on the grounds that they were irrelevant to the statutory qualified privilege and malice issues at hand. The court was tasked with determining whether the interrogatories were relevant and whether it was necessary to compel the defendant to answer them. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the interrogatories posed by the plaintiff were relevant to the defences of statutory qualified privilege and malice and whether it was necessary to order the defendant to provide answers. The court considered the principles that govern the use of interrogatories and whether they served to assist in resolving the core issues of the case. The court also needed to assess whether the defendant's objections were justified, particularly in the context of the legal defences raised.

The court found that the interrogatories were relevant to the issues of statutory qualified privilege and malice, as they sought to understand the defendant's state of mind and intentions at the time of publication. The court held that the answers to the interrogatories could be material in determining whether the defences were applicable. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the interrogatories aligned with the issues in the case and the necessity of compelling answers to facilitate the resolution of the dispute. The court thus ordered that the defendant provide answers to the interrogatories.

In conclusion, the court ordered the defendant to provide answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories, finding them relevant to the defences of statutory qualified privilege and malice. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that interrogatories are pertinent to the issues at hand and the need to compel answers where necessary to resolve the case effectively.

Orders