Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Hanson v Burston [2023] FCAFC 124 Appeal from: Burston v Hanson [2022] FCA 1235 and Burston v Hanson (No 2) [2023] FCA 112
File number(s): NSD 925 of 2022
Judgment of: WIGNEY, WHEELAHAN AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 16 August 2023
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – where comments were made during an oral interview broadcast on national television – where it was pleaded that the interview conveyed imputations that the respondent sexually abused a female staffer in his parliamentary office (fourth imputation), and that the respondent physically assaulted someone without provocation (sixth imputation) – appeal from the primary judge's decision that the fourth and sixth imputations were carried – appeal from the primary judge's decision that the fourth and sixth imputations were not substantially true – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the fourth and sixth imputations were carried – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the substantial truth of the fourth and sixth imputations had not been proven HELD – the fourth imputation was carried – the substantial truth of the fourth imputation had been proven – the sixth imputation was not carried – appeal allowed, with costs
Legislation: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing [2019] FCAFC 125; (2019) 271 FCR 632 Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84; (2022) 289 FCR 1 Burston v Hanson [2022] FCA 1235 Burston v Hanson (No 2) [2023] FCA 113 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335; (2010) 278 ALR 232 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos [2002] NSWCA 41; (2002) 54 NSWLR 165 Herron v HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 68; (2022) 292 FCR 336 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33 Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; (2019) 266 CLR 129 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Nguyen v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] NSWCCA 42 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496 Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157 Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; (2018) 263 CLR 149 V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2021] FCA 500
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate