Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2001] NSWSC 693

Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2001] NSWSC 693

The Court considered that some additional directions should be given to the jury about matters raised in the defendants' addresses, but not in the precise terms sought by the plaintiff. The reference to Martin Luther King did not contain the vice complained of and would not be specifically corrected. The plaintiff's alternative application for a right of reply was refused, with the ordinary order of address maintained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Trial of Limited Issues Pursuant to Defamation Act S7 a / Interlocutory Ruling on Jury Directions and Application for Right of Reply During Addresses
Outcome
Interlocutory ruling: the Court proposed to give additional jury directions, refused to give them in the precise terms sought, declined to correct the Martin Luther King reference, and refused the plaintiff's alternative application for a right of reply.
Legal Topics
['trial of Limited Issues' 'jury Directions' 'order of Address' 'right of Reply' 'defamation Act S7 A']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['trial of Limited Issues' 'jury Directions' 'order of Address' 'right of Reply' 'defamation Act S7 A']

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 Trial of Limited Issues Pursuant to Defamation Act S7 a / Interlocutory Ruling on Jury Directions and Application for Right of Reply During Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether specific directions should be given to the jury arising out of the addresses by counsel for the respective defendants.' "Whether the plaintiff should be permitted a right of reply to the defendants' addresses as an alternative to specific jury directions." "Whether counsel's reference to the ordinary reasonable viewer's knowledge that the FBI had had Martin Luther King under surveillance required corrective direction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court considered that some additional directions should be given to the jury about matters raised in the defendants' addresses, but not in the precise terms sought by the plaintiff. The reference to Martin Luther King did not contain the vice complained of and would not be specifically corrected. The plaintiff's alternative application for a right of reply was refused, with the ordinary order of address maintained.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory ruling: the Court proposed to give additional jury directions, refused to give them in the precise terms sought, declined to correct the Martin Luther King reference, and refused the plaintiff's alternative application for a right of reply.

Orders

  • ["Additional directions to the jury to be given in relation to matters raised during counsel's addresses, but not in the precise terms specified by the plaintiff." "Plaintiff's alternative application for a right of reply to the defendants' addresses refused." 'No specific corrective direction to be given about the...