Federal Court of Australia
30!
CATCHWORDS DEFAMATION - Television programme - Programme concerned with social effects of open-cut mining operations in close proximity to aboriginal reserve - Contrary statements and opinions
expressed - Whether alleged defamatory imputations established - Qualified privilege - Whether public importance of subject matter of programme of itself sufficient to attract privilege - Malice - Material false to the knowledge of the publisher - Fair comment - Whether every factual statement in programme upon which comment based must be shown to be true - Damages - Whether trading corporation has a reputation other than a reputation in the way
of its trade or business - Aggravated damages - Mitigation of damages.
Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth), s.59
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. COMALCO LIMITED
No. ACT G 19 of 1985
Smithers, Neaves and Pincus JJ.
11 September 1986
Canberra
Counsel for the appellant Mr R.V. Gyles Q.C. and
Mr T.K. Tobin Q.C. Solicitors for the appellant : Colquhoun Murphy
Counsel for the respondent : Mr S.P. Charles Q.C. and
Mr R.C. Macaw Solicitors for the respondent : Macphillamy Cummins & Gibson
Dates of hearing 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27,
28 and 29 November 1985
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
JUDGES MAKING ORDER DATE _OF ORDER
WHERE MADE
) ) ) ) No. ACT G19 of 1985 ) ) )
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN : AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Appellant AND: COMALCO LIMITED
Respondent
MINUTE OF ORDER
Smithers, Neaves and Pincus Jd.
11 September 1986
Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
l.
The appeal be allowed to the extent that the
judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 22 February 1985 awarding Comalco Limited damages in the sum of $295,000 against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and ordering the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to pay the taxed costs of Comalco Limited of the proceedings in that Court be varied by substituting for the sum of $295,000 the sum of $100,000.
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