Goldsworthy v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 290

Goldsworthy v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 290

Directions sought by the defendants in relation to restrictions on the opening address, tape playback, disclosure of imputations, and jury access to evidence were refused because they departed from established practice, were previously rejected in analogous cases such as Marsden, and intruded on the secrecy of the jury's deliberations. The tape may be played as required by the case; transcript evidence may be excluded to prevent confusion; and jury deliberations must remain confidential.

Parties
Plaintiff: Allan John Goldsworthy; First Defendant: Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd (ACN 000 796 887); Second Defendant: Ray Hadley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions / Hearing and Determination of Directions Prior to Jury Trial
Outcome
Directions sought, refused.
Legal Topics
Jury Directions, Opening Address, Admissibility of Recordings, Role of Jury in Defamation, Transcript Evidence, Secrecy of Jury Deliberations
Defamation Evidence Jury Directions Opening Address Admissibility of Recordings Role of Jury in Defamation Transcript Evidence Secrecy of Jury Deliberations

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan John Goldsworthy

Plaintiff

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd (ACN 000 796 887)

First Defendant

Ray Hadley

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions / Hearing and Determination of Directions Prior to Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's opening address should be limited to issues for jury under s 7A of the Defamation Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the number of times the tape of the broadcast may be played to the jury should be limited
  3. 3 Whether jury should be informed of the imputations alleged before hearing the tape

Ratio Decidendi

Directions sought by the defendants in relation to restrictions on the opening address, tape playback, disclosure of imputations, and jury access to evidence were refused because they departed from established practice, were previously rejected in analogous cases such as Marsden, and intruded on the secrecy of the jury's deliberations. The tape may be played as required by the case; transcript evidence may be excluded to prevent confusion; and jury deliberations must remain confidential.

Court Disposition

Directions sought, refused.

Orders

  • Directions sought on behalf of the defendants refused.