CHANNEL SEVEN SYDNEY PTY LTD v PARRAS & ORS [2002] NSWCA 202

CHANNEL SEVEN SYDNEY PTY LTD v PARRAS & ORS [2002] NSWCA 202

The telecast was capable of conveying imputations (b)-(e) about the reckless or incompetent management of the Soho Bar and Piccadilly Hotel to the plaintiffs, but imputation (a) (that the plaintiffs were criminal drug dealers who supplied ecstasy and cocaine) was not capable of being conveyed. Identification of plaintiffs was sufficiently established by direct and indirect evidence, including responses from patrons and associates and testimony from directors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part.
Legal Topics
['identification in Defamation' 'imputations' 'corporate Plaintiffs' "publication 'of and Concerning' Plaintiff"]
['defamation'] ['identification in Defamation' 'imputations' 'corporate Plaintiffs' "publication 'of and Concerning' Plaintiff"]

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether jury's findings on whether the imputations were conveyed were open" 'Whether plaintiffs were sufficiently identified in the telecast for purposes of defamation law']

Ratio Decidendi

The telecast was capable of conveying imputations (b)-(e) about the reckless or incompetent management of the Soho Bar and Piccadilly Hotel to the plaintiffs, but imputation (a) (that the plaintiffs were criminal drug dealers who supplied ecstasy and cocaine) was not capable of being conveyed. Identification of plaintiffs was sufficiently established by direct and indirect evidence, including responses from patrons and associates and testimony from directors.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the determinations of the jury which held that the matter complained of conveyed imputation (a).' "Respondents to pay one third of the appellant's costs and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified."]