Russell v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 4) [2023] FCA 1279

Russell v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 4) [2023] FCA 1279

Because the judgment sum was agreed, the impugned publications had been removed and there was no appreciable danger of republication, judgment was entered for $412,315.48 and no injunction was made. The respondents accepted that the applicant obtained a judgment more favourable than his offer of compromise and expressly consented to pay ordinary costs before 11am on 14 September 2022 and indemnity costs thereafter; in light of that consent, the Court made the costs order even though, absent consent, the applicant's deliberately false evidence would have justified reducing the costs recoverable for the work and time spent on that issue. Leave to appeal was granted from the order reflecting...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs and Consequential Orders in a Defamation Proceeding / Residual Issues Following Judgment, Including Judgment Sum, Injunctive Relief, Costs and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Judgment entered for the applicant; no injunctive relief ordered; costs ordered by consent partly on an indemnity basis; leave to appeal granted from order 4 of the orders made on 1 February 2023.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'overarching Purpose' 'injunctive Relief' 'leave to Appeal' 'false Evidence']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'offer of Compromise' 'overarching Purpose' 'injunctive Relief' 'leave to Appeal' 'false Evidence']

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

Costs and Consequential Orders in a Defamation Proceeding / Residual Issues Following Judgment, Including Judgment Sum, Injunctive Relief, Costs and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether judgment should be entered for the agreed sum including interest.' 'Whether injunctive relief was necessary after removal of the impugned publications from the ABC website.' "Whether the respondents should pay part of the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis following an unaccepted offer of compromise." "Whether the applicant's deliberately false evidence would have justified a different costs order but for the respondents' consent." "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the order reflecting the Court's conclusion as to the meaning of the defamatory matters."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the judgment sum was agreed, the impugned publications had been removed and there was no appreciable danger of republication, judgment was entered for $412,315.48 and no injunction was made. The respondents accepted that the applicant obtained a judgment more favourable than his offer of compromise and expressly consented to pay ordinary costs before 11am on 14 September 2022 and indemnity costs thereafter; in light of that consent, the Court made the costs order even though, absent consent, the applicant's deliberately false evidence would have justified reducing the costs recoverable for the work and time spent on that issue. Leave to appeal was granted from the order reflecting...

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the applicant; no injunctive relief ordered; costs ordered by consent partly on an indemnity basis; leave to appeal granted from order 4 of the orders made on 1 February 2023.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the applicant against the respondents in the sum of $412,315.48.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding on an ordinary basis in relation to costs incurred prior to 11am on 14 September 2022 and thereafter on an indemnity basis." 'The parties be granted leave to appeal from order...