Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1120

Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1120

The '60 Minutes' broadcast conveyed several pleaded defamatory imputations against Schiff as alleged in the statement of claim, due to its tone, sequencing, and overall impression, whereas the related article employed qualified, careful language and investigative context, and thus did not convey any of the pleaded imputations.

Parties
Applicant: Peter David Schiff; First Respondent: Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: The Age Company Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Nicholas McKenzie; Fourth Respondent: Charlotte Grieve; Fifth Respondent: Joel Tozer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Determination of Separate Questions; Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Broadcast carried defamatory imputations; Article did not carry pleaded imputations.
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meanings, Contextual Imputations, Media Publications, Qualified Privilege, Broadcasts Vs Print Articles

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 7 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter David Schiff

Applicant

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

The Age Company Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Nicholas McKenzie

Third Respondent

Charlotte Grieve

Fourth Respondent

Joel Tozer

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Determination of Separate Questions; Interlocutory Judgment

  1. 1 Whether TV broadcast and/or article conveyed pleaded defamatory imputations
  2. 2 Whether alleged imputations are defamatory
  3. 3 Whether publication conveys contextual imputations in addition to pleaded imputations

Ratio Decidendi

The '60 Minutes' broadcast conveyed several pleaded defamatory imputations against Schiff as alleged in the statement of claim, due to its tone, sequencing, and overall impression, whereas the related article employed qualified, careful language and investigative context, and thus did not convey any of the pleaded imputations.

Court Disposition

Broadcast carried defamatory imputations; Article did not carry pleaded imputations.

Orders

  • The separate questions contained in annexure A of the orders of 1 June 2022 be answered as set out in the reasons for judgment published today.
  • The parties are to confer and, within seven days, are to submit agreed or competing proposed orders for the future conduct of the matter.