Paul George Reading v ABC [2003] NSWSC 716

Paul George Reading v ABC [2003] NSWSC 716

The amendments were allowed because the defendant had notice, no adjournment was sought, the new imputations differed in substance and were sufficiently clear, and there was no tangible procedural prejudice. The transcript was refused because the issues for the jury required assessment of the broadcast as seen and heard, not a written record of spoken words, so the transcript was not relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and in any event would be excluded under s 135 because unfair prejudice outweighed probative value. The jury was discharged and the matter stood over for a fresh hearing because its answers, including a non-responsive answer and an answer that an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding Pursuant to S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Concerning Whether Imputations Arise From a Broadcast / Reasons Confirming Interlocutory Orders Made During Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made during the trial were confirmed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'defamatory Imputations' 'tender of Broadcast Transcript' 'relevance and Unfair Prejudice' 'discharge of Jury' 'new Trial']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'jury Trials'] ['amendment of Statement of Claim' 'defamatory Imputations' 'tender of Broadcast Transcript' 'relevance and Unfair Prejudice' 'discharge of Jury' 'new Trial']

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 Proceeding Pursuant to S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Concerning Whether Imputations Arise From a Broadcast / Reasons Confirming Interlocutory Orders Made During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the statement of claim to alter pleaded imputations' 'Whether the plaintiff could tender a transcript of the Four Corners broadcast' 'Whether the jury should be discharged after giving answers indicating confusion or inconsistency']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments were allowed because the defendant had notice, no adjournment was sought, the new imputations differed in substance and were sufficiently clear, and there was no tangible procedural prejudice. The transcript was refused because the issues for the jury required assessment of the broadcast as seen and heard, not a written record of spoken words, so the transcript was not relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and in any event would be excluded under s 135 because unfair prejudice outweighed probative value. The jury was discharged and the matter stood over for a fresh hearing because its answers, including a non-responsive answer and an answer that an...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made during the trial were confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff was allowed to amend the statement of claim.' "The plaintiff's tender of the transcript of the broadcast was rejected." 'The jury was discharged.' 'The matter was stood over for a fresh hearing.']