Tingle & Anor v Harbour Radio P/L & Anor [No 4] [1999] NSWSC 461

Tingle & Anor v Harbour Radio P/L & Anor [No 4] [1999] NSWSC 461

Because the jury had found that the broadcast conveyed the defamatory imputation that Mr Tingle had bragged publicly about The Shooters' Party's political strength and secure financial position knowing both boasts were untrue, and no defence was raised, the Court assessed damages for that imputation. The broadcast caused some short-lived harm to reputation and real hurt to feelings, increased by the falsity of the imputation, the sneering tone and intention to wound, and unjustifiable cross-examination accusing the plaintiff of lying. However, much of the plaintiff's distress related to other aspects of the broadcast, and only 40 percent of the hurt was attributed to the actionable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Judgment on Damages After Jury Determination Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $75,000 against both defendants, jointly and severally, with costs on a party and party basis; interest and costs of the companion action reserved.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Damages' 'compensatory Damages' 'hurt to Feelings' 'reputation' 'vindication' 'apology in Mitigation' 'radio Broadcast']
['defamation' 'torts' 'damages'] ['aggravated Damages' 'compensatory Damages' 'hurt to Feelings' 'reputation' 'vindication' 'apology in Mitigation' 'radio Broadcast']

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 Action / Judgment on Damages After Jury Determination Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What damages should be awarded for the defamatory imputation found by the jury.' "Whether aggravated damages were warranted by the defendants' conduct in publication or thereafter." "Whether the apology broadcast by Mr Casey mitigated the plaintiff's damage." "What part of the plaintiff's hurt and distress was caused by the defamatory imputation on which he succeeded."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jury had found that the broadcast conveyed the defamatory imputation that Mr Tingle had bragged publicly about The Shooters' Party's political strength and secure financial position knowing both boasts were untrue, and no defence was raised, the Court assessed damages for that imputation. The broadcast caused some short-lived harm to reputation and real hurt to feelings, increased by the falsity of the imputation, the sneering tone and intention to wound, and unjustifiable cross-examination accusing the plaintiff of lying. However, much of the plaintiff's distress related to other aspects of the broadcast, and only 40 percent of the hurt was attributed to the actionable...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $75,000 against both defendants, jointly and severally, with costs on a party and party basis; interest and costs of the companion action reserved.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $75,000 against both defendants, jointly and severally.' 'Pursuant to Pt 52 r 24(4), the plaintiff should have his costs on a party and party basis.' "The question of interest, and the costs payable in respect of the companion action by The Shooters' Party Limited against...