Rene Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 496

Rene Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 496

The defendant failed to establish any pleaded defence. Section 13 was not made out because the broadcast to a very wide audience was likely to further harm the plaintiff notwithstanding prior publications. Common law qualified privilege failed for want of reciprocity of interest and because any interest in reporting the inquest did not extend to publishing an untrue imputation about the plaintiff. Statutory qualified privilege under s22 failed because the imputation was false, the defendant had no honest belief in its truth, called no evidence explaining the reasonableness of publishing it, and the manner and context of publication showed the defendant knew or ought to have known the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Defences and Damages After a S 7 A(4) Jury Trial
Outcome
The plaintiff was awarded damages in the sum of $150,000.00.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'section 13 Defence' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'punitive Damages']
['defamation' 'torts'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'section 13 Defence' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'punitive Damages']

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 Proceedings / Determination of Defences and Damages After a S 7 A(4) Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant established that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was not likely to suffer harm under s13 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' 'Whether the publication was protected by common law qualified privilege.' 'Whether the publication was protected by statutory qualified privilege under s22 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' 'Whether corresponding privilege defences for publication outside NSW were made out.' 'What damages should be awarded for the defamatory imputation found by the jury.' 'Whether aggravated damages or punitive damages should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish any pleaded defence. Section 13 was not made out because the broadcast to a very wide audience was likely to further harm the plaintiff notwithstanding prior publications. Common law qualified privilege failed for want of reciprocity of interest and because any interest in reporting the inquest did not extend to publishing an untrue imputation about the plaintiff. Statutory qualified privilege under s22 failed because the imputation was false, the defendant had no honest belief in its truth, called no evidence explaining the reasonableness of publishing it, and the manner and context of publication showed the defendant knew or ought to have known the...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was awarded damages in the sum of $150,000.00.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is awarded damages in the sum of $150,000.00.']