Ray Chesterton v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 982

Ray Chesterton v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 982

The defence of qualified privilege at common law (reply to attack) did not apply because Mr Chesterton’s column did not constitute an attack on Mr Laws sufficient to establish a privileged occasion. Even if it did, most of the response broadcast was not relevant to the alleged attack, being splenetic invective...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment After Jury Determination on Defamatory Imputations, Judge Determination on Defences and Damages
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['common Law Qualified Privilege' 'reply to Attack' 'damages for Defamation' 'assessment of Damages' 'hurt to Feelings' 'harm to Reputation']
['defamation' 'tort'] ['common Law Qualified Privilege' 'reply to Attack' 'damages for Defamation' 'assessment of Damages' 'hurt to Feelings' 'harm to Reputation']

Source-derived case record

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 / Judgment After Jury Determination on Defamatory Imputations, Judge Determination on Defences and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence of qualified privilege at common law applies via reply to attack' 'Whether proportionality is required between the attack and response in defence of reply to attack' "Whether the defendant's broadcast caused hurt to feelings and harm to reputation as claimed"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of qualified privilege at common law (reply to attack) did not apply because Mr Chesterton’s column did not constitute an attack on Mr Laws sufficient to establish a privileged occasion. Even if it did, most of the response broadcast was not relevant to the alleged attack, being splenetic invective rather than a rebuttal germane to the subject matter. The defendant failed to establish the defence, and plaintiff was entitled to damages for hurt to feelings and harm to reputation caused by the defamatory broadcast.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff awarded $90,000 in damages.']