TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Pahuja [2019] NSWCA 166

TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Pahuja [2019] NSWCA 166

The trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence of substantial truth from the jury for imputations (a), (h), and (j), as the evidence and inferences could reasonably support those defences; as a result, the appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and a new trial is ordered. Contextual truth defence was correctly withdrawn, as pleaded, since it could not mitigate further harm to reputation as required by s 26.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; prior orders set aside; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
['substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'defences' 'operation of Ss 25 and 26 of Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']
['defamation'] ['substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'defences' 'operation of Ss 25 and 26 of Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence of substantial truth from the jury for certain imputations' 'Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence of contextual truth from the jury' 'Whether there should be a retrial when only some imputations were found to be untrue']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence of substantial truth from the jury for imputations (a), (h), and (j), as the evidence and inferences could reasonably support those defences; as a result, the appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and a new trial is ordered. Contextual truth defence was correctly withdrawn, as pleaded, since it could not mitigate further harm to reputation as required by s 26.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; prior orders set aside; new trial ordered

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal from the judgment of McCallum J given on 23 October 2018.' 'Set aside orders (1)-(4) made by McCallum J on 29 June 2018.' 'Order that there be a new trial of the matter.' 'Direct that the costs of the first trial be determined in the course of the new trial.' "Order that the respondent pay the...