Poniatowska v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd

[2019] SASCFC 111

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Justification
3. › Onus of proof on defendant
4. › Proof of fraud
5. › Whether defendant proved plaintiff guilty of fraud in obtaining Centrelink benefits
6. › Whether trial judge erred in use of guilty pleas as admissions after convictions set aside
7. › Whether trial judge erred in approach to onus of proof
8. › Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 25
1. Defamation
2. › Fair comment
3. › Whether imputation was statement of fact or comment
4. › Whether underlying facts proved true
5. › Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 29
1. Defamation
2. › Fair report
3. › Whether publication constituted fair report of court proceedings
4. › Whether defamatory imputations contained in or derived from court proceedings
5. › Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 27
1. Defamation
2. › Qualified privilege
3. › Statutory qualified privilege
4. › Whether conduct of defendant in publishing was reasonable in the circumstances
5. › Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 28

Quick Take

Where a defendant in defamation proceedings relies on justification by alleging fraud, the defendant bears the onus of proving each element of the fraud to the Briginshaw standard; rejection of the plaintiff's evidence does not relieve the defendant of that onus and does not itself constitute proof of fraud. Guilty pleas that have been set aside on appeal are not conclusive evidence of guilt and cannot be relied upon as admissions of elements that were not properly particularised in the charges. In assessing the reasonableness of a media defendant's conduct for qualified privilege defences, the court must consider whether the defendant had any sources of information supporting the defamatory imputations beyond the court proceedings reported, and whether the defendant made effective attempts to obtain the plaintiff's response.