Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60

The statements in the promotion, whether taken alone or together, were not recognisable as comment but as fact or impermissibly intermingled fact and opinion; the facts said to underpin the comment were not stated, indicated, or notorious to the publishees; and the particulars pleaded could not lead an honest person reasonably to conclude the plaintiff had deliberately concealed evidence. Therefore, the fair comment defence as pleaded was not available and the impugned paragraphs of the defence were properly struck out.

Parties
Appellant: Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd; Respondent: Dr Colin Manock
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Fair Comment Defence, Distinction Between Fact and Comment, Sufficiency of Facts Stated or Indicated, Defamation Pleadings, Strike Out Applications
Defamation Torts Media Law Fair Comment Defence Distinction Between Fact and Comment Sufficiency of Facts Stated or Indicated Defamation Pleadings Strike Out Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

Appellant

Dr Colin Manock

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in a TV promotion pleaded as fair comment constituted comment or fact
  2. 2 Whether the facts on which the comment is based are sufficiently indicated or notorious
  3. 3 Whether the fair comment defence must address the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The statements in the promotion, whether taken alone or together, were not recognisable as comment but as fact or impermissibly intermingled fact and opinion; the facts said to underpin the comment were not stated, indicated, or notorious to the publishees; and the particulars pleaded could not lead an honest person reasonably to conclude the plaintiff had deliberately concealed evidence. Therefore, the fair comment defence as pleaded was not available and the impugned paragraphs of the defence were properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Special leave to cross-appeal be granted, cross-appeal allowed.