Garry Dobson v Macquarie Radio Network Ltd [2007] NSWSC 718

Garry Dobson v Macquarie Radio Network Ltd [2007] NSWSC 718

Applying the ordinary reasonable listener test to the whole of each radio programme, and allowing for the nature of transient radio broadcasts and the general tenor of the alleged attack, most challenged imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed and were sufficiently distinct and sufficiently clear in form. However, imputations alleging that the plaintiff was suspected of improperly procuring his secondment, and two imputations in the third matter alleging that he should be sacked or did not deserve secondment, lacked reasonable support in the relevant broadcasts and were incapable of being conveyed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Three Radio Programmes Broadcast on Radio Station 2 GB / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations, With Capacity Issues Determined as Separate Questions Under R 28.2 and Pleading Objections Determined Under R 14.28(1)
Outcome
Defendant's strike out application allowed in part; imputations 6(h), 9(j), 12(e) and 12(f) were to be struck out, while the other challenged imputations identified in paragraph 131 were held reasonably capable of being conveyed.
Legal Topics
['radio Broadcasts' 'pleading of Imputations' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise' 'specificity and Ambiguity of Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'strike Out Application']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['radio Broadcasts' 'pleading of Imputations' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise' 'specificity and Ambiguity of Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'strike Out Application']

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 Proceedings Concerning Three Radio Programmes Broadcast on Radio Station 2 GB / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations, With Capacity Issues Determined as Separate Questions Under R 28.2 and Pleading Objections Determined Under R 14.28(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first matter complained of was reasonably capable of conveying imputations 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(e), 6(f), 6(g) and 6(h).' 'Whether the second matter complained of was reasonably capable of conveying imputations 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(d), 9(e), 9(f), 9(g), 9(h), 9(i) and 9(j).' 'Whether the third matter complained of was reasonably capable of conveying imputations 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), 12(d), 12(e), 12(f), 12(g), 12(h) and 12(i).' 'Whether challenged imputations were defective in form because they were ambiguous, uncertain, insufficiently specific, or did not differ in substance from other imputations.' 'Whether certain imputations were incapable of being defamatory.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the ordinary reasonable listener test to the whole of each radio programme, and allowing for the nature of transient radio broadcasts and the general tenor of the alleged attack, most challenged imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed and were sufficiently distinct and sufficiently clear in form. However, imputations alleging that the plaintiff was suspected of improperly procuring his secondment, and two imputations in the third matter alleging that he should be sacked or did not deserve secondment, lacked reasonable support in the relevant broadcasts and were incapable of being conveyed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's strike out application allowed in part; imputations 6(h), 9(j), 12(e) and 12(f) were to be struck out, while the other challenged imputations identified in paragraph 131 were held reasonably capable of being conveyed.

Orders

  • ['The first matter complained of is reasonably capable of conveying imputations 6(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g).' 'The second matter complained of is reasonably capable of conveying imputations 9(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i).' 'The third matter complained of is reasonably capable of conveying imputations...