Robert Waites & Anor v Macquarie Radio Network Ltd [2006] NSWSC 507

Robert Waites & Anor v Macquarie Radio Network Ltd [2006] NSWSC 507

The Jones programme and the Hadley programme were separate and distinct. The Hadley programme was conducted by a different presenter, followed a 28 minute interval containing unrelated material, and the Jones programme and its components were intelligible without reference to the Hadley programme. A reasonable listener to the Jones programme might not have listened to the Hadley programme, and the defendant failed to show that the only view reasonably open was that the two programmes constituted one publication.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Strike in Application Under UCPR R 14.28 Concerning the Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pleading Defamatory Publications' 'strike in Application' 'multiple Radio Broadcasts' 'talk Back Radio Programmes' 'ucpr R 14.28']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading Defamatory Publications' 'strike in Application' 'multiple Radio Broadcasts' 'talk Back Radio Programmes' 'ucpr R 14.28']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Strike in Application Under UCPR R 14.28 Concerning the Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be directed to include matter from the later Ray Hadley radio programme as part of the publication pleaded from the Alan Jones radio programme.' 'Whether the Jones programme and the Hadley programme could only properly be pleaded as a single publication.' 'Whether the omission of the Hadley programme made the amended statement of claim unfair, embarrassing, unreasonable, or an abuse of process.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Jones programme and the Hadley programme were separate and distinct. The Hadley programme was conducted by a different presenter, followed a 28 minute interval containing unrelated material, and the Jones programme and its components were intelligible without reference to the Hadley programme. A reasonable listener to the Jones programme might not have listened to the Hadley programme, and the defendant failed to show that the only view reasonably open was that the two programmes constituted one publication.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's application be dismissed." "The defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs." 'The proceedings be stood over for directions to the Defamation List 9.30am 19 June 2006.']