Smith v TCN Channel Nine Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 935

Smith v TCN Channel Nine Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 935

Although the defendant successfully resisted the urgent interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff's application was reasonable and understandable because the defendant had told the plaintiff only that the broadcast would be based on the Sunday Telegraph article and did not disclose before proceedings the matters later put to the Court. The refusal of the injunction depended fundamentally on counsel's statements and undertaking about the gist of the broadcast, which effectively replaced formal undertakings or orders. In those circumstances there was good reason not to order costs in favour of the successful defendant, and each party should bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Common Law Defamation Urgent Injunction / Costs Following Urgent Interlocutory Proceedings on 21 August 2006
Outcome
Each party to pay his or its own costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['urgent Interlocutory Injunction' 'costs' 'television Broadcast' 'undertaking by Counsel']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['urgent Interlocutory Injunction' 'costs' 'television Broadcast' 'undertaking by Counsel']

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

Common Law Defamation Urgent Injunction / Costs Following Urgent Interlocutory Proceedings on 21 August 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to the defendant after it successfully resisted urgent interlocutory orders preventing a broadcast.' "Whether the plaintiff's commencement of urgent proceedings was reasonable and understandable where the defendant had not explained the gist of the proposed program before proceedings were commenced." "Whether costs must follow the event where the defendant's statements and undertaking in court were central to the refusal of interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant successfully resisted the urgent interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff's application was reasonable and understandable because the defendant had told the plaintiff only that the broadcast would be based on the Sunday Telegraph article and did not disclose before proceedings the matters later put to the Court. The refusal of the injunction depended fundamentally on counsel's statements and undertaking about the gist of the broadcast, which effectively replaced formal undertakings or orders. In those circumstances there was good reason not to order costs in favour of the successful defendant, and each party should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay his or its own costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Each party will bear their own costs of and incidental to the summons and interlocutory proceedings before Rothman J on 21 August 2006.']