Echo Publications Pty. Ltd. v. Tucker & Ors. Fast Buck$ v. Tucker & Anor (No.3) [2007] NSWCA 320

Echo Publications Pty. Ltd. v. Tucker & Ors. Fast Buck$ v. Tucker & Anor (No.3) [2007] NSWCA 320

Although readers of The Echo had an interest in information about Ms. Potts' response, Mr. Tucker's approval of the use of his newspaper, and Fast Buck$'s views on that use, and although the defamatory matter was published in the course of giving information on those subjects, Echo Publications failed to discharge its onus of proving that its conduct was reasonable because it led no evidence about important circumstances relevant to reasonableness, including its actual assessment of Fast Buck$ as a reliable source and of the public interest in his opinions. The s.22 defence therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Further Hearing on S.22 Defence and Consequential Orders as to Fast Buck$'s Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Echo Publications' defence under s.22 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) failed; costs orders were made and otherwise no further orders were made.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege Under S.22 of Defamation Act 1974 (nsw)' 'interest in Having Information' 'publication in the Course of Giving Information' "reasonableness of Publisher's Conduct" 'costs']
['defamation'] ['qualified Privilege Under S.22 of Defamation Act 1974 (nsw)' 'interest in Having Information' 'publication in the Course of Giving Information' "reasonableness of Publisher's Conduct" 'costs']

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 Appeal / Further Hearing on S.22 Defence and Consequential Orders as to Fast Buck$'s Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether readers of The Echo had an interest in having information on a relevant subject for the purposes of s.22(1)(a) of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' 'Whether the defamatory matter was published in the course of giving readers information on that subject for the purposes of s.22(1)(b).' 'Whether Echo Publications proved that its conduct in publishing the defamatory matter was reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of s.22(1)(c).' "What consequential orders should be made in relation to Fast Buck$'s appeal and costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although readers of The Echo had an interest in information about Ms. Potts' response, Mr. Tucker's approval of the use of his newspaper, and Fast Buck$'s views on that use, and although the defamatory matter was published in the course of giving information on those subjects, Echo Publications failed to discharge its onus of proving that its conduct was reasonable because it led no evidence about important circumstances relevant to reasonableness, including its actual assessment of Fast Buck$ as a reliable source and of the public interest in his opinions. The s.22 defence therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Echo Publications' defence under s.22 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) failed; costs orders were made and otherwise no further orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Echo Publications to pay the costs of the further hearing referred to in Order 1 made on 18 July 2007.' 'Fast Buck$ to pay any additional costs resulting from the further hearing referred to in Order 2 made on 18 July 2007.' 'Otherwise, no further orders made.']