Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras & Ors

[2002] NSWCA 202

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Imputations
3. › Capacity of matter complained of to convey imputations
4. › Television broadcast
5. › Whether jury's findings on imputations were open
6. › Whether telecast dealing predominantly with one nightclub capable of conveying imputations of criminality against operators of second nightclub
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Imputations
3. › Distinction between imputation of criminal complicity and imputation of incompetent management
4. › Whether ordinary reasonable viewer attributed with working knowledge of criminal law
1. Defamation
2. › Identification
3. › Plaintiff not identified by name in publication
4. › Evidence of extrinsic facts providing identification
5. › Whether necessary to prove publication to person who identified plaintiff rather than merely plaintiff's business
6. › Whether knowledge of corporate plaintiff's actual name required
1. Defamation
2. › Identification
3. › Corporate plaintiff
4. › Whether directors' evidence of identification of corporate plaintiff is valid testimony
5. › Whether co-plaintiffs may give evidence of identification

Quick Take

In defamation cases where the plaintiff is not named in the publication, the plaintiff must prove that at least one person linked the publication to the plaintiff (not merely to the plaintiff's business). However, knowledge of the plaintiff's actual corporate name is not required — it suffices that the person knew who the owners or operators were. Direct evidence of identification is not essential; it may be proved indirectly through evidence of general notoriety, contact from persons responding to the publication, or talk among viewers. Evidence from co-plaintiff directors identifying a corporate plaintiff is valid and does not fall foul of the Currabubula principle regarding intra-company communications. A television broadcast reporting on criminal activity at a business is not capable of conveying an imputation that the business's management were themselves criminal suppliers where the broadcast only refers to 'several staff' being arrested.