Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWDC 26

Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWDC 26

The ABC did not discharge its onus of proving reasonableness. It broadcast extremely serious hearsay allegations of corruption and bribery without proper enquiries, failed to include the crucial denial by Gary McIntyre, failed to test Mark Wells or adequately investigate his connection with Al Constantinidis, made misleading statements about the plaintiff's availability to respond, and did not take adequate steps to avoid conveying the imputations found by the jury. The qualified privilege defences therefore failed, no responsible journalism defence was available or made out, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages including aggravated compensatory damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Judgment on Liability, Defences and Damages After a Jury Empanelled Under S.7 a Defamation Act 1974 Determined Defamatory Imputations
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $150,000, with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
['statutory Qualified Privilege' 'common Law Qualified Privilege for Discussion of Government and Political Matters' 'reasonableness' 'responsible Journalism' 'general Damages' 'aggravated Compensatory Damages' 'interest and Costs']
['defamation' 'media Law'] ['statutory Qualified Privilege' 'common Law Qualified Privilege for Discussion of Government and Political Matters' 'reasonableness' 'responsible Journalism' 'general Damages' 'aggravated Compensatory Damages' 'interest and 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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Judgment on Liability, Defences and Damages After a Jury Empanelled Under S.7 a Defamation Act 1974 Determined Defamatory Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ABC acted reasonably for the purposes of statutory qualified privilege under s.22 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' 'Whether the ABC established common law qualified privilege for discussion of government and political matters under Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation.' 'Whether any defence based on Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited, Jameel and responsible journalism was available or made out.' "Whether the ABC's broadcast conveyed serious defamatory imputations concerning bribery, corruption and lying." 'What damages, including aggravated compensatory damages, should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ABC did not discharge its onus of proving reasonableness. It broadcast extremely serious hearsay allegations of corruption and bribery without proper enquiries, failed to include the crucial denial by Gary McIntyre, failed to test Mark Wells or adequately investigate his connection with Al Constantinidis, made misleading statements about the plaintiff's availability to respond, and did not take adequate steps to avoid conveying the imputations found by the jury. The qualified privilege defences therefore failed, no responsible journalism defence was available or made out, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages including aggravated compensatory damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $150,000, with interest and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $150,000.' 'Interest at 2% per annum from the date of publication (30 August 2002) to the date of judgment (8 March 2007).' 'The plaintiff and defendant have liberty to apply in relation to order 2 or, in the alternative, to file short minutes of order...