Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Greiss [2024] FCAFC 162

Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Greiss [2024] FCAFC 162

The spit was intended for, and directed towards, the complainant; the difference between 'spat at' and 'spat towards/in the direction of' the complainant is not material to substantial truth. The contextual imputation pleaded differed in substance and, with its supporting facts, justified that any reputational harm caused by pleaded imputations was not further harm. The primary judge's conclusions on all three publications were correct as to the availability of the defences; therefore, the appeal succeeds and the proceeding is dismissed with costs.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Seven Network (Operations) Limited; Appellant/cross Respondent: Ms Leonie Ryan; Respondent/cross Appellant: Mr Mina Greiss
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; primary judgment and costs orders set aside; proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Substantial Truth Defence, Contextual Truth, Honest Opinion, Imputations, Costs
Defamation Substantial Truth Defence Contextual Truth Honest Opinion Imputations Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seven Network (Operations) Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

Ms Leonie Ryan

Appellant/cross Respondent

Mr Mina Greiss

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the substantial truth defence for imputations in the Facebook post
  2. 2 Whether the contextual truth defence was properly upheld for the Article and Tweet under s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to judgment and costs by reason of defences under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The spit was intended for, and directed towards, the complainant; the difference between 'spat at' and 'spat towards/in the direction of' the complainant is not material to substantial truth. The contextual imputation pleaded differed in substance and, with its supporting facts, justified that any reputational harm caused by pleaded imputations was not further harm. The primary judge's conclusions on all three publications were correct as to the availability of the defences; therefore, the appeal succeeds and the proceeding is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; primary judgment and costs orders set aside; proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed.