Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd v. Whitlam, Edward Gough [1980] FCA 64

Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd v. Whitlam, Edward Gough [1980] FCA 64

There was no evidence that the appellant engaged in any joint purpose or concerted action to telecast the programme in the Australian Capital Territory or acted as a joint tortfeasor in relation to its publication there; court practice is to stay proceedings, not set aside the writ or service, where jurisdictional facts under s.11 of the Act are not established.

Parties
Appellant (fifthnamed Defendant): Victorian Broadcasting Network Limited; Respondent (plaintiff): Edward Gough Whitlam
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Writ and Service
Outcome
Leave granted to the appellant to apply to amend its application to seek a stay of proceedings; further hearing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Stay of Proceedings, Joint Tortfeasor Liability, Libel
Civil Procedure Torts Service Out of Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Joint Tortfeasor Liability Libel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victorian Broadcasting Network Limited

Appellant (fifthnamed Defendant)

Edward Gough Whitlam

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Writ and Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a joint tortfeasor with defendants in jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether any act or thing was done by the appellant within the Australian Capital Territory for which damages are sought.
  3. 3 Whether the writ of summons and its service can be set aside as to the appellant or whether a stay should be granted where the case does not fall within s.11 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the appellant engaged in any joint purpose or concerted action to telecast the programme in the Australian Capital Territory or acted as a joint tortfeasor in relation to its publication there; court practice is to stay proceedings, not set aside the writ or service, where jurisdictional facts under s.11 of the Act are not established.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the appellant to apply to amend its application to seek a stay of proceedings; further hearing adjourned.

Orders

  • Appellant granted leave to apply within 21 days to amend its application for a stay of proceedings.
  • Further hearing of the appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed.