Chau v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1884

Chau v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1884

Media publications reporting on a prior verdict in favour of the applicant are not admissible under s 38(1)(c) and (d) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) as evidence of mitigation of damages, as mere tender of such articles does not prove their effect on reputation or mitigate damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Tender of respondents' article rejected.
Legal Topics
['mitigation of Damages' 'admissibility of Media Publications']
['evidence' 'defamation'] ['mitigation of Damages' 'admissibility of Media Publications']

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 / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether media publications reporting on prior verdict are admissible under s 38(1)(c) and (d) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) as evidence of mitigation of damages' "Whether mere tender of media publications can affect applicant's reputation"]

Ratio Decidendi

Media publications reporting on a prior verdict in favour of the applicant are not admissible under s 38(1)(c) and (d) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) as evidence of mitigation of damages, as mere tender of such articles does not prove their effect on reputation or mitigate damages.

Court Disposition

Tender of respondents' article rejected.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' proposed tender of the article under the headline 'Chau Chak Wing wins defamation case against The Sydney Morning Herald' published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 February 2019 be rejected."]