Buck & v Jones & Ors

[2002] NSWCA 8

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Talkback radio broadcast
4. › Caller and broadcaster as separate publishers
5. › Whether imputation conveyed by caller's publication necessarily conveyed by broadcaster's publication of entire broadcast
6. › Whether jury findings necessarily inconsistent or perverse
1. Defamation
2. › Trial by jury
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Ordinary reasonable listener
5. › Witness evidence of meaning attached to broadcast
6. › Whether impermissible use of evidence in counsel's address
7. › Whether trial judge obliged to give corrective direction
8. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Broadcaster's liability
4. › Publication of defamatory statements made by third party
5. › Whether publisher of whole broadcast necessarily conveys same imputations as publisher of part
1. Appeal
2. › Jury verdicts
3. › Inconsistent findings
4. › Perversity
5. › Whether court may substitute finding or new trial required

Quick Take

A broadcaster who publishes the whole of a talkback radio broadcast does not necessarily convey the same defamatory imputations as a caller whose statements form only part of the broadcast; the nature and quality of the publication may vary depending on whether the defamatory statement is adopted, repudiated or discounted by the broader publication. However, where the broadcaster publishes without relevant qualification matter found to convey a defamatory imputation, a jury finding that the imputation was conveyed by the caller but not by the broadcaster may be perverse. Where jury findings are inconsistent, the appropriate remedy is a new trial involving all defendants rather than substitution of a finding, particularly where s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) requires the finding to be made by a jury.