Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 43

Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 43

The references to "a court" in the offer of amends provisions were copied from the earlier legislation and, in light of the statutory context and the purpose of s 22 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), were not intended to reserve the issue of reasonableness to the trial judge where the proceedings are tried by jury. The issues of reasonableness and self-publication involve disputed factual questions for the jury, and the jury should determine defamatory meaning by answering questions directed to each pleaded imputation rather than only to the publications as a whole.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Application for Pre Trial Rulings About Questions to Go to the Jury in a Jury Defamation Trial
Outcome
Application determined against the plaintiff on the disputed pre-trial ruling issues; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['jury Trial' 'roles of Judge and Jury' 'offer of Amends' 'reasonableness Under S 18(1)(c) Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'self Compelled Publication' 'defamatory Meaning' 'imputations']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['jury Trial' 'roles of Judge and Jury' 'offer of Amends' 'reasonableness Under S 18(1)(c) Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'self Compelled Publication' 'defamatory Meaning' 'imputations']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Application for Pre Trial Rulings About Questions to Go to the Jury in a Jury Defamation Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the question of reasonableness for the purposes of s 18(1)(c) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is to be determined by the judge or by the jury.' 'Whether the issue of self-publication alleged to arise from the plaintiff sending the material complained of to councillors and executive officers should be determined by the judge or by the jury.' 'Whether the jury should determine defamatory meaning by reference to the imputations pleaded or by reference to the matter complained of as a whole.']

Ratio Decidendi

The references to "a court" in the offer of amends provisions were copied from the earlier legislation and, in light of the statutory context and the purpose of s 22 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), were not intended to reserve the issue of reasonableness to the trial judge where the proceedings are tried by jury. The issues of reasonableness and self-publication involve disputed factual questions for the jury, and the jury should determine defamatory meaning by answering questions directed to each pleaded imputation rather than only to the publications as a whole.

Court Disposition

Application determined against the plaintiff on the disputed pre-trial ruling issues; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Each of the questions identified by the plaintiff as issues for determination by the trial judge (i.e. the question of reasonableness for the purposes of s 18(1)(c) and the issue of "self-compelled publication") shall be determined by the jury.' 'The jury shall determine issues of defamatory meaning for each of...