Buck & Ors v Jones & Ors [2002] NSWCA 8

Buck & Ors v Jones & Ors [2002] NSWCA 8

Although counsel for Mr Jones and 2UE made impermissible use of Miss Campbell's evidence by inviting the jury to be swayed by what she took from the broadcast, the trial judge's clear and repeated directions that the jury had to apply the hypothetical ordinary reasonable listener test were sufficient, and no appealable error was shown in Mr Campbell's appeal. As to Miss Johnson, the finding that Mr Carter's publication conveyed imputation 6(b) did not as a matter of law require the same finding against Mr Jones and 2UE because the matters published were not co-extensive; however, on the facts, if the finding against Mr Carter was taken as the starting point, the contrary finding in favour...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['talkback Radio Broadcast' 'defamatory Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Listener' 'witness Evidence of Meaning' 'jury Directions' 'inconsistent Jury Answers' 'new Trial']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['talkback Radio Broadcast' 'defamatory Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Listener' 'witness Evidence of Meaning' 'jury Directions' 'inconsistent Jury Answers' 'new Trial']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether counsel impermissibly used Miss Campbell's evidence about what the broadcast conveyed to her when addressing what was conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener." "Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury to disregard Miss Campbell's evidence in determining what meanings were conveyed by the matter complained of." "Whether the jury's answers concerning imputation 6(b) as between Miss Johnson and the respondents were necessarily and irreconcilably inconsistent." 'Whether a finding that imputation 6(b) was conveyed by the part of the matter published by Mr Carter required a finding that the same imputation was conveyed by the whole broadcast published by Mr Jones and 2UE.' "Whether the Court could substitute a finding for the jury's answer or whether a new trial was required."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although counsel for Mr Jones and 2UE made impermissible use of Miss Campbell's evidence by inviting the jury to be swayed by what she took from the broadcast, the trial judge's clear and repeated directions that the jury had to apply the hypothetical ordinary reasonable listener test were sufficient, and no appealable error was shown in Mr Campbell's appeal. As to Miss Johnson, the finding that Mr Carter's publication conveyed imputation 6(b) did not as a matter of law require the same finding against Mr Jones and 2UE because the matters published were not co-extensive; however, on the facts, if the finding against Mr Carter was taken as the starting point, the contrary finding in favour...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ["Set aside the jury's answers to question 4(b) and 12(b) and order that there be a new trial as between the fourth plaintiff and the defendants in respect of imputation 6(b)." "The third and fourth appellants pay the respondents' costs thrown away and occasioned by the amendment to the notice of appeal." "The third...