a) JUDGMENT NO. ues Ot Sad cl sa CATCHWORDS DEFAMATION - defence of "innocent dissemination" - whether available to a television broadcaster who received a program from a station in another area and telecast it in its own area without change - discussion of the nature of the defence - whether in the circumstances of the particular case there was negligence on the part of the television company within the Meaning of the principle of the defence - reference to questions of policy. RELEASE ) JOINT TORTS ) - effect of release of one joint tortfeasor - whether s. 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) abolished the common law rule that a release of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of all - discussion of authorities - discussion of rule that Acts altering the common law should be construed as doing so only so far as is necessary to give effect to their provisions - discussion of relationship between release rule and recovery of contribution by one joint tortfeasor from another. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), s. 11 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s. 5(1) Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354 Weldon v. "The Times" Book Company (Limited) (1912) 28 TLR 143 McLeod v. St. Aubyn [1899] AC 549 Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library, Limited [1900] 2 QB 170 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. W.H. Smith and Son Limited (1933) 150 LT 211 Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 478 Jensen v. Clark (1982) 2 NZLR 268 Duck 'v. Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 Cutler v. McPhail [1962] 2 QB 292 Ramsay v. Pigrim (1968) 118 CLR 271 J F and B E Palmer Pty Ltd v. Blowers and Lowe Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 89 Bryanston Finance Ltd v. de Vries [1975] QB 703 Wah Tat Bank Ltd v. Chan Cheng Kum [1975] AC 507 XL Petroleum (N.S.W.) Proprietary Limited v. Caltex Oil (Australia) Proprietary Limited (1985) 155 CLR 448 Apley Estates Company Limited v. De Bernales [1947] Ch 217 Dixon v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (1979) 99 DLR (3d) 652 Dixon v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (1980) 128 DLR (3d) 389 State of New South Wales v. McCloy Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 489 2. Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales v. Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319 Hocking v. Western Australian Bank (1909) 9 CLR 738 American Dairy Queen (Q'ld) Proprietary Limited v. Blue Rio Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 677 Black-Clawson International Ltd v. Papierwerke Waldhof- Aschaffenburg [1975} AC 591 Deanplan Ltd v. Mahmoud [1993] Ch 151 Nickels v. Parks (1948) 49 SR(NSW) 124 Brambles Constructions Pty Limited v. Helmers (1966) 114 CLR Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Limited v. Commissioner for Government Transport (1955) 92 CLR 200 EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON v. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TELEVISION PTY LTD & ANOR ACTG 4 of 1994 Burchett, Miles and Ryan JJ. Canberra 19 December 1994 RECEIVED 29 DEC 1994 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTAY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION ) ) ) ACTG 4 of 1994 ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON Appellant AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TELEVISION PTY LTD First Respondent PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING PTY LTD and TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD Second Respondents CORAM: Burchett, Miles and Ryan JJ. PLACE: Canberra DATE : 19 December 1994 ORDERS OF THE COURT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. There be no order as to the costs of the appeal. ,30 TALS 1S 5 7 is aenTene if S> SRD ne rer a : Ds Fes ery f- . \ we - z otra OPS eee PL A . { a eal Vom Lae vad OTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. with in IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ACTG 4 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON Appellant AND: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TELEVISION PTY LTD First Respondent AND: PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING PTY LTD and TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD Second Respondents CORAM: Burchett, Miles and Ryan JJ. PLACE: Canberra DATE : 19 December 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT? BURCHETT AND RYAN JJ. : There is no doubt that the first respondent defamed the appellant, who accordingly sued for damages. But this appeal is concerned with whether a defence has been established known as "innocent dissemination", and also with whether the appellant was shown to have released the respondent from liability. Each of these defences raises questions that are controversial in the modern law. The first respondent ("Channel 7") operated a television broadcasting station with a viewing audience covering the Australian Capital Territory and parts of New South Wales, ancluding Queanbeyan. One programme telecast by it, a current 2. affairs programme known as the "Today Show", was produced on behalf of the second respondents ("Channel 9") in Sydney, where it was seen on the station Channel 9, being transmitted to a receiving station on Black Mountain, Canberra, and from there to Channel 7's studios for virtually simultaneous telecasting in the Australian Capital Territory. On the relevant occasion, the "Today Show" included an interview with a@ young woman identified as "Vicki", who alleged that her father had committed incest with her from the time she was seven years old, and had fathered a child to whom she had given birth when she was fourteen. We should add that it is not now suggested these allegations were true. Nor in fact did Vicki give birth to a child when she was fourteen. Although the appellant is not actually Vicki's father, he was living in Queanbeyan with her mother and their family, as husband and wife, and the learned Judge who heard the matter has held, on the plainest evidence, that people who knew the appellant and his family would have taken the allegations to refer to him. Having regard to what is required to be shown in order to make out a defence of innocent dissemination, a matter to which we shall shortly come, it 1s important to note that the allegations made by Vicki were not the spontaneous and unforeseen remarks of a person appearing on a live telecast, injected suddenly into an interview dealing with some other topic. The terms of the discussion which took place on the programme, and the part played by the interviewer, make it 3. quite clear that those responsible had prior notice of what the young woman Vicki would say. Indeed the interviewer did not refrain from putting the story about the birth of the child into her mouth. It is therefore apparent that the extremely damaging nature of what was to be said was known in advance. And if that was known in advance, the possibility that the story was false must also have been appreciated. Its source was a self-acknowledged prostitute and drug addict. The publication of such a story cannot be regarded as made with that confidence of freedom from any taint of defamation which the Court of Appeal in Weldon _v. "The Times" Book Company (Limited) (1912) 28 TLR 143 was willing to attribute to the publication of statements made in scholarly (and presumably objective) studies of certain celebrated musicians of the past, among whom happened to be Gounod. But although these comments plainly apply to the producer of the programme, Channel 7 claims that, for its part, it was entirely innocent of any knowledge that the programme was or might be defamatory of anyone. It received the transmission under an agreement containing no particular terms about its content; and the arrangements made for the telecast in the Australian Capital Territory did not provide any opportunity for Channel 7 to monitor independently the statements made by those involved. 4. The law concerning the defence of innocent dissemination 1s stated in Gatley on Libel and Slander ("Gatley"), 8th ed. (1981), para. 241, as follows: "But the liability is somewhat different in the case of a person who is not the author, printer, or the 'first or main publisher of a work which contains a libel,' but has only taken 'a subordinate part in disseminating it,' e.g. by selling, distributing or handing to another a copy of the newspaper or book in which it appears. Such a person will not be liable if he succeeds in showing - (1) that he did not know that the book or paper contained the libel complained of; and (ii) that he did not know that the book or paper was of a character likely to contain a libel; and (iai) that such want of knowledge was not due to any negligence on his part." This defence is generally regarded as having originated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354, It seems to us there are at least two strands to the reasoning in Emmens v. Pottle and the cases whi have followed it. One strand relies on the limited nature of the defendant's involvement in the publication; he was not responsible for the insertion of the libellous material in the book or newspaper, nor for its injection into the stream of commerce in articles of that kind. This, however, even when combined with innocence of knowledge of the libel, would not be sufficient in itself to excuse him. But, in addition, the bookseller or newsagent may be able to show no negligence on his part was involved in his assumption that the articles in which he dealt were such as it was proper for him to sell. In 5. seeking to show. that, he is assisted, as a factual consideration tending against any reasonable requirement of precautions on his part, by his lack of involvement in the original production of the libel. Thus the two strands of the principle are twisted together. In Emmens v. Pottle itself, Bowen L.J. said, in words which Cozens-Hardy M.R. repeated in Weldon (supra) at 144: "The jury have found as a fact that the defendants were innocent carriers of that which they did not know contained libellous matter, and which they had no reason to suppose was likely to contain libellous matter. A newspaper is not like a fire; a man may carry it about without being bound to suppose that it is likely to do an injury. It seems to me that the defendants are no more liable than any other innocent carrier of an article which he has no reason to suppose likely to be dangerous. But I by no means intend to say that the vendor of a newspaper will not be responsible for a libel contained in it if he knows, or ought to know, that the paper is one which is likely to contain a libel." That the defence is limited to persons fulfilling a subordinate role is made clear by the decision on the closely analogous question of publication of a contempt of court in McLeod v. St. Aubyn [1899] AC 549. There, the Privy Council (Lord Watson, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Morris and Lord Davey), in an advice delivered by Lord Morris, said (at 562): "He was not the printer or publisher of the newspaper. He was a mere agent and correspondent of it at St. Vincent. eee It would be extraordinary if every person who innocently handed over a newspaper or lent one to a friend, with no knowledge of its containing anything objectionable, could be thereby constructively but necessarily guilty of a contempt of a Court because the said newspaper 6. happened to contain scandalous matter reflecting on the Court. -.». A pranter and publisher intends to publish, and so intending cannot plead as a justification that he did not know the contents. The appellant in this case never intended to publish. " Cf. Regina v. Griffiths. Ex parte Attorney-General [1957] 2 QB 192 at 204-205; there the respondents' role was not seen as merely subordinate, and they were liable. The same point was made by Romer L.J. in the Court of Appeal decision Vazetelly v. Mudie's Select Library, Limited [1900] 2 QB 170 at 180, where he said: "The result of the cases is I think that, as regards a person who is not the printer or the first or main publisher of a work which contains a libel, but has only taken, what I may call, a subordinate part in disseminating it, in considering whether there has been publication of ait by him, the particular circumstances under which he disseminated the work must be considered. If he did it in the ordinary way of his business, the nature of the business and the way in which it was conducted must be looked at; and, if he succeeds in shewing (1.) that he was innocent of any knowledge of the libel contained in the work disseminated by him, (2.) that there was nothing in the work or the circumstances under which 1t came to him or was disseminated by him which ought to have led him to suppose that it contained a libel, and (3.) that, when the work was disseminated by him, it was not by any negligence on his part that he did not know that it contained the libel, then, although the dissemination of the work by him was prima facie publication of it, he may nevertheless, on proof of the before-mentioned facts, be held not to have published it. But the onus of proving such facts lies on him, and the question of publication or non-publication is in such a case one for the jury." 7. The sense in which it must be shown that the defendant was not negligent in not knowing of the libel is well illustrated by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada _v. W.H. Smith and Son Limited (1933) 150 LT 211, another decision of the Court of Appeal. The case was concerned with the exhibition by newsagents of a poster supplied to them by the publishers of a newspaper to promote the sales of their paper. The newsagents received the papers and posters at their head office, where they did not have time to examine them, and sent them out to various bookstalls. Scrutton L.J. said (at 213): "But there appears to me to be in the system of Messrs W.H. Smith and Son Limited no efficient supervision of what they exhibit at their bookstalls for payment as in the case of exhibition under the contract which I have read. It is obvious ... that, if it is a question for the jury whether a business carried on in this way is carried on negligently, there was evidence upon which the jury could answer the fourth question as they did, 'Was there any negligence on the part of the defendants in not knowing that the poster or the newspaper contained a libel?' The jury may very well have thought: 'It is true that you are not able in the rush of business at your head office to look at every newspaper and every poster, but when you send the posters to your responsible manager of a bookstall to paste up, if you cannot look at them yourself, it is obvious that you ought to give him ainstructions that if, on looking at the poster he is suspicious of the subject-matter which you have not seen, he should at least at once communicate with you and not exhibit the poster until he has received your answer.'" Greer L.J. said (at 215-216): "The effect of the evidence is this, that by the system they have adopted, Messrs W.H. Smith and Son Limited have made it next to impossible that they should exercise any care whatever in seeing whether posters they put up for reward for themselves 8. contain defamatory statements against some other person. It seems to me to be a course of conduct that may be regarded as negligent, because 'negligence' imports the neglect of a duty towards someone, and surely the people who issue and put up posters owe some duty to the public, to the people who read them, to the people about whom they are written. It is not sufficient for the defendants to say that it is inconvenient for them and difficult for them, having regard to their large business, to make any other arrangements than the arrangements which they have in fact made. If those arrangements result in a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care towards persons who may be damaged by defamatory statements, then there is negligence within the rules which have been laid down with reference to the question of innocent dissemination." Apart from the dissenting judgment of Lord Denning in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 478, which (as Scarman L.J. pointed out at 500) is not only contrary,to the views of the majority but contrary also to the leading textbook in the area, Gatley, and to the concession of the parties in that case, it has always been accepted that the onus of establishing the defence of innocent dissemination 1s upon the defendant. In Jensen _v. Clark (1982) 2 N&ZLR 268 at 275 Prichard J. said: "(I)t as clear that there is an onus on the 'disseminator' to show that he was not aware of any circumstance which would put him on his guard or lead him to suspect that the material might be defamatory or, if he was aware of any such circumstance, that he took care to ensure that the material was not defamatory before disseminating it. In Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 566, 572, Lord Denning put it on the basis of 'knew or ought to have known' and expressed the view that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff. However, that was a dissenting judgment and seems to be unsupported by any other decision." 9. Prichard J. asserted the law was accurately stated by Bowen L.J. in the passage we have quoted from his judgment in Emmens v. Pottie (supra). In so holding, he was following in the footsteps of Cozens-Hardy M.R. in Weldon (ubi supra) and Scrutton L.J. in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (supra at 214), who said: "In my view the safest course for the trial judge ... is to follow Bowen L.J., who 18 a very good man to follow." The defence of innocent dissemination has not previously been thought available to a television company broadcasting material which 1t did not produce. The point is mentioned in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort 13th ed. (1989) at 319, where it is stated in a footnote that the Faulks Committee (Cmnd. 5909 (1975)) "recommended no change in the law" (i.e. in the rule that the defence was not available to a broadcasting company). The same position seems to obtain in South Africa: J.M. Burchell, The Law of Defamation in South Africa (1985) 177. In the American Second Restatement, Torts (1976), it is set out ins. 581: "(1) Except as stated in subsection (2), one who only delivers or transmits defamatory matter published by a third person is subject to liability if, but only if, he knows or has reason to know of its defamatory character. (2) One who broadcasts defamatory matter by means of radio or television is subject to the same liability as an original publisher." 10. In the commentary on this section, there is an elaboration of the position of radio and television broadcasting companies: "For their own business purposes they initiate, select and put upon the air their own programs; or by contract they permit others to make use of their facilities to do so, and they cooperate actively in the publication. Their activity is similar to that of a newspaper, which employs its own reporters or writers to prepare matter to be published, or by contract agrees to publish matter, such as advertisements, prepared and controlled by others. The broadcasting company is therefore not to be regarded as engaged solely in the transmission of messages. As in the case of a newspaper, it is an original and primary publisher and is not subject to the exceptional rule stated in Subsection (1)." In our opinion, a television company broadcasting a programme in its area - a programme which may never have been published in that area otherwise - although it may have been received from a different company that had produced it, is a world away from the subordinate distributor to whom Gatley says the defence of innocent dissemination may be available. On the contrary, the television company is an original publisher of the particular broadcast beamed from its station into the area covered by its broadcasts. If an analogy to a newsagent or bookshop were to be sought in the electronic field, a shop selling or letting on hire video cassette recordings would be an obvious suggestion. To the television station, the words of Lord Morris in McLeod v. St. Aubyn, which we have earlier quoted, must apply: as a "publisher [it] intends to publish, and so intending cannot plead as a justification that [it] did not know the contents". That 11. seems to us to be the position on the existing authorities. But if the question is to be considered from the standpoint of the policy that should be adopted by the law, it is also relevant to point out that both the report of the Faulks Committee in England and the Second Restatement in America have come down firmly in favour of the continued application of the accepted principle. Although it does not apply in the present case having regard to the financial substance of Channel 9, there also militates against the extension of the defence of innocent dissemination to relayed television transmissions the possibility that the originator of defamatory material might be insolvent or, as an overseas entity, could not be sued readily or at all in the courts of this country. In those circumstances, there seems to be no reason in policy why the defence should be available to deny the victim a remedy against a solvent and available defendant which has derived whatever benefit 1t perceived from transmitting the material. We would accordingly hold that the defence 1s not available to the respondent. However, if it were available, in our opinion it has not been made out in the present case, The defendant did not prove that exercise of due care which it was required to show. Indeed, it proved that the contract under which it received the programme for telecasting contained no term whatever requiring due care to be exercised, either generally, or with particular regard to the risk of defaming someone in the viewing area. The reality is that 12. those who produced the programme were aware in advance of the nature of what would be said on it; and if Channel 7 was content to accept the producer as its agent in respect of the consideration of the propriety of televising the material, and the producer took no care, we do not see why Channel 7 should escape the consequences of the producer's knowledge. At any rate, it took no precautions of any kind, knowing the programme was a current affairs programme, a programme which by its nature would be likely to involve comments about persons. It was said that there was no opportunity to monitor the content of the programme between its receipt at the Black Mountain receiver and the telecasting of it by Channel 7. If that were inevitably so, it would underline the need to require precautions to be taken in connection with the making of the programme. But nothing at all was proved to show that there was anything inevitable about it. The proof offered went no further than that things were done in that way. Whether it was feasible to monitor the programme for possibly defamatory statements was simply not explored in evidence. If the defence had otherwise been available, 1t seems to us that it would have failed for the same reason that it failed in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (supra) - that the company had not shown that its arrangements had involved the exercise of reasonable care towards persons who might be damaged by defamatory statements, to put the matter in the terms chosen by Greer L.J. 13. Having reached this conclusion, 1t is necessary for us to turn to the alternative defence of release. Before the hearing of his claim against Channel 7, the appellant had sued the television company responsible for broadcasts on Channel 9 in Sydney, where the same programme had been telecast, and had settled his claim against that company for $50,000. The settlement was embodied in a deed of release made 23 August 1985. The deed recited the Channel 9 broadcast, and the settlement, and contained: (1) a release of Channel 9 from all actions against it arising out of Channel 9's broadcast; (2) a release of Channel 9 from all actions against it "arising out of any other publication of the matter complained of by or on behalf of [Channel 9] its servants agents and related companies"; and (3) a release of Channel 9 (there is a typing error in the deed, but Channel 9 is clearly meant) and related companies from all actions "arising out of or in respect to the publication or broadcast of any part of the matter complained of over television station TCN 9 Sydney or over any other radio or television station or by any other means whatsoever or in respect of or arising out of any other publication whatsoever by or on behalf of [Channel 9 and] its related companies". (Emphasis added. ) 14. The learned trial Judge construed this deed as involving a release of Channel 7, not as a consequence of any doctrine of the law operating in respect of a joint tortfeasor, but as a matter of construction of its terms. With respect, we cannot so understand the deed. It seems to us quite expressly to have released Channel 9 and its related companies - but Channel 7 was not a related company of Channel 9 - in respect both of the telecast sued upon in New South Wales, and also of any other publication of the libel by Channel 9. The appeal was argued on the footing that the programme as televised in the Australian Capital Territory plainly involved a publication by Channel 9. It was Channel 9 which transmitted the programme to Black Mountain to be received by Channel 7. When Channel 7 then telecast the programme, Channel 9 and Channel 7 were joint tortfeasors, each of whom was responsible for the publication of the libel in the Australian Capital Territory. On this basis, although the deed was not expressed as a release of Channel 7, at common law it would have had that effect. This is because of the principle that a release of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of all: Duck v. Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 at 513; Cutler v. McPhail [1962] 2 QB 292; Ramsay v. Pigrim (1968) 118 CLR 271 at 286, 288, per Taylor J. (with whom Kitto J. agreed), and at 290, per Windeyer J.; J F and B E Palmer Pty Ltd v. Blowers and Lowe Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 89; and see Glanville Williams on Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence (1951) para. 11, and Halsbury 4th ed. vol. 9 para. 627. 15. However, the appellant argued that a by-product of the enactment of s. 11 of the Law. Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), subss. 1, 2 and 3 of which reflect with only minuscule alterations the provisions of s. 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), was to abolish the common law rule. Accordingly, it is necessary to set out the relevant parts of those subsections of s. 11, to which, for reasons that will become apparent, we have added subs. 4: "11. (1) This section applies where damage is suffered by a person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not). (2) Judgment recovered against a tort-feasor [sic] liable in respect of the damage is not a bar to an action against any other person who would, if sued, have been liable as a joint tort-feasor in respect of the same damage. (3) If more than one action is brought in respect of the damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered ... against tort-feasors liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tort-feasors or otherwise) - (a) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions by way of damages do not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and (b) in any of those actions other than that in which judgment is first given, the plaintiff 1s not entitled to costs unless the court is of opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action. (4) <A tort-feasor liable in respect of the damage may recover contribution from any other tort-feasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tort- feasor or otherwise, but no person 1s entitled to recover contribution under this section from a person entitled to be indemnified by him or her in 16. respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought." The first thing to notice about s. 11 is that it 1s not at all concerned with any question of the effect of a release. The relevant subsections are concerned with the rule which barred a plaintiff who had recovered judgment against one joint tortfeasor from then suing another; and with establishing rules in respect of the recovery of damages by the bringing of successive actions. It is not, therefore, surprising that Professor Glanville Williams, who wrote after the enactment in the United Kingdom of provisions to the same effect, was not troubled by any thought that they had actually changed the law of release, which he considered might well be changed. Nor for many years was any such suggestion made by anyone. It was not, for instance, made by Salmon J. (as Lord Salmon then was) in Cutler v. McPhail [1962] 2 QB 292. And ain Bryanston Finance Ltd v. de Vries [1975] QB 703 at 732 Lord Diplock said of the corresponding provisions in the United Kingdom, which are to be found in s. 6 of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935: "The technical common law doctrine of 'release' is unaffected by the Act. Such an agreement still has the effect in law of releasing all other joint tortfeasors as well, though courts nowadays are reluctant to construe an agreement with one tortfeasor as a release rather than a covenant not to sue him, unless it is plain that the agreement was intended by the plaintiff to operate also as a release of the other joint tortfeasors from their liability." 17. He continued in the next paragraph of his judgment to point out that the same section "does have the result of abolishing in its entirety (emphasis added) the technical common law doctrine of merger of the cause of action against all joint tortfeasors in the farst judgment recovered against any one of them." Immediately before the giving of the decision in Bryanston Finance, the Privy Council had decided, in an advice delivered by Lord Salmon, the appeal in Wah Tat Bank Ltd v. Chan Cheng Kum (1975] AC 507. There, it had been argued that the statutory reform permitting successive actions against joint tortfeasors did not permit the entry of successive judgments in a single action in which more than one joint tortfeasor had been joined. The Privy Council emphatically rejected this artificial proposition. In the course of his reasons, Lord Salmon said (at 515): "According to the common law rule, anyone who suffered damage by reason of a tort jointly committed by a number of persons was deemed to have but one cause of action which merged in the first judgment which he might recover in respect of at... . Once he recovered final judgment against any tortfeasor, his cause of action in respect of that tort disappeared. He was accordingly barred from subsequently recovering judgment against any other joint tortfeasor responsible for that tort whether in an action commenced before, at the same time as, or after the action in which a final judgment had already been recovered." After discussing this rule at some length, he concluded (at 517), of a section relevantly in the same terms as s. 11, 18. "their Lordships consider that it expresses with reasonable clarity the intention of the legislature to abolish the common law rule in its entirety." In XL Petroleum (N.S.W.) Proprietary Limited v. Caltex Qil (Australia) Proprietary Limited (1985) 155 CLR 448 at 458, Gibbs C.J. stated his agreement with the view of the Privy Council and of Lord Diplock. The question in XL Petroleum was whether, separate actions being now permissible, verdicts in differing amounts could be obtained on the basis that a particular tortfeasor was liable to pay exemplary damages. Gibbs C.J. said (at 459-460): "Once it 1s accepted that more than one judgment may be given against joint tortfeasors for damages caused by a joint tort, whether damages are given in the same or in different proceedings, there can remain no foundation for the rule that only one sum can be awarded by the different judgments. The reason for the rule was that there was only one cause of action against the joint tortfeasors, but that is no longer the position - the statute has abolished, 'in its entirety' the old common law principle that a person who suffers damage by a joint tort has only one cause of action which merges in the first judgment recovered in respect of it. Surely the statutory provision was not intended to abolish only the doctrine of merger, for it was not primarily directed to the question of merger, and there is no reason for selecting one aspect of the principle rather than another as that which it was intended to affect; the whole principle should be held to have gone. It seems to me impossible now to hold that there is any principle that would prevent a plaintiff from recovering different sums from different tortfeasors if he brings separate actions against them, provided that some are liable for exemplary damages and others are not, and the same must be true if the joint tortfeasors are all sued in one action." 19. Wilson J. agreed with the Chief Justice, and Brennan J. (in a separate judgment) reasoned along similar lines. It is the proposition that the old law has been done away with "in its entirety" upon which the argument in the present case fastened. Counsel said that the effect given to a release at common law was also a consequence of the same rule, and that it, too, had gone. But it 1s plain that Gibbs C.J., when he put the words "in its entirety" in inverted commas, was referring to the use of those expressions by Lord Salmon and Lord Diplock, to whose advice and judgment he had referred. They were not talking about the doctrine of release, as Lord Diplock had made expressly clear. Nor was Gibbs C.J. The entire rule to which they and he were referring was the rule concerning the bringing of actions against joint tortfeasors in order to recover verdicts against them, and the limitation placed upon the amount of a verdict as a corollary of the rule. The nature of a joint liability, as distinct from particular essentially procedural problems which beset the enforcement of it, was neither dealt with in the Law Reform provision nor under examination by Gibbs C.J., Lord Diplock or Lord Salmon. Cf. Barisic v. Devenport [1978] 2 NSWLR 111. Just as Lord Diplock's express reference to the subject of release makes it plain that the entire rule which he thought had gone did not involve in its passing the doctrine of release, so Gibbs C.J. also made it plain that he was not 20. dealing with the question of release. In his judgment (at 456), he referred to Duck v. Mayeu (supra), without any hint of disapproval, and apparently accepting it; and (at 459) he said: "In Bryanston Finance Ltd v. de Vries Lord Diplock said that an agreement to release one joint tortfeasor still releases the others; it may be thought that this implies that the rule that the victim of a tort committed by joint tortfeasors has only one cause of action still applies, but the question that now falls for decision was not discussed." This is to take the dictum of Lord Diplock as a brick upon which more might have been built, although Gibbs C.J., of course, used another foundation for the conclusion he actually reached. But what is clear for present purposes is that he accepted Lord Diplock's proposition without demur. Indeed, it is not to be thought that, if Gibbs C.J. had intended to reject what Lord Diplock had said, he would have failed even to mention the acceptance by Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ., in Ramsay v. Pigram (ubi cit. supra), of the authority of Duck v. Mayeu. Nor could that acceptance have been ignored on the ground that they did not have their attention directed to the possibility of some impact of the very law reform provisions now relied on, for Taylor J. cited Apley Estates Company Limited v. De Bernales [1947] Ch. 217, where Somervell L.J. (at 222) referred to that possibility. What Taylor J. said (at 286) was the following: 21. "Likewise, although the liability of joint tortfeasors is said to be joint and several in the sense that a plaintiff may, without objection sue one or more of them, it has consistently been held that the release of one of several joint tortfeasors operates to release all: Duck v. Mayeu [1892] 2 Q.B. 511, and Apley Estates Co. Ltd. v. De Bernales * {1947] 1 Ch. 217. In the former case A. L. Smith L.J. speaking for the Court of Appeal said: 'It is, we think, clear law, that a release granted to one joint tortfeasor, or to one joint debtor, operates as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasor, or the other joint debtor, the reason being that the cause of action, which is one and indivisible, having been released, all persons otherwise liable thereto are consequently released. The case of Cocke v. Jennor (1614) Hob. 66 [80 E.R. 214] is distinct upon the point, and there are many subsequent cases to the same effect.' This passage was cited by the Court of Appeal with approval in Apley Estates Co. Ltd. v. De Bernales [1947] 1 Ch. 217 and as far as I can see has never been questioned." Leading textbooks have accepted that the law is as stated in Duck v. Mayeu: Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts 19th ed. (1987) 498; Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort 13th ed. (1989) 592; Gatley on Libel and Slander, 8th ed. (1981), paras. 864 and 865; Fridman on the Law of Torts in Canada (1990) vol. 2 355. Fridman cites the Canadian case Dixon v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (1979) 99 DLR (3d) 652, where (at 660-662) Ruttan J. referred to Halsbury (3rd ed.) vol. 37 para. 246 and to a number of decisions in support of the continued application of Duck v. Mayeu. When the matter went on appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Taggart J.A., who delivered the judgment of the Court, said (Dixon v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (1980) 128 DLR (3d) 389 at 403): 22. "If the settlement had taken the form of a settlement based in part upon a release by the plaintiffs of any liability on the part of the Ferry Authority and, if the acts causing the injuries to Mr Dixon had been those of the Ferry Authority and Hydro as joint tortfeasors, then the release of one joint tortfeasor would effect a release of the other." In Australia, the second edition of Trindade and Cane: The Law of Torts in Australia (1993) at 729 states that "the rule that a release discharges all the tortfeasors still survives, although courts today might be unwilling to interpret a document as a release rather than a covenant not to sue." It was after the decision of the High Court in XL Petroleum that Burchett J. decided J F_& B E Palmer Pty Ltd v. Blowers and Lowe Pty Ltd (supra). Burchett J. followed the authority of Duck v. Mayeu and the view of Lord Diplock, which his Honour understood to have been accepted by Gibbs C.J. Subsequently, this decision was cited by Sweeney J. in Perrosax Pty Ltd v. Jusco Pty Ltd (unreported, 8 December 1989), where his Honour's judgment shows that he had reached the same conclusion independently. Very shortly after the delivery of judgment by the High Court in XL Petroleum, Finlay J., sitting in the common law division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, had also accepted that "the agreement to release one joint tortfeasor still releases the other": Delic v. Svrcek (unreported, 27 May 1985). Against these authorities may be set the doubt expressed by Professor Fleming in his Law _of Torts 8th ed. (1992) at 23. 259, where he referred to the rule that the release of one joint tortfeasor discharges all, citing Cutler v. McPhail and JF & BE Palmer Pty Ltd v. Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd, and then added: "This rule has not been abrogated expressly except in Tasmania; but it may have been implicitly: by authorising successive actions, the unity of the common law action against all tortfeasors may have been severed in its entirety." This passage was referred to in the judgment of Beazley J. in State of New South Wales v. McCloy Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 489, where (at 498) the conclusion was expressed, as an obiter dictum: "I consider that there is much force in the proposition that the rule, that a release of one joint tortfeasor operates in favour of all joint tortfeasors, did not survive the enactment of s 5(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act. Although Gibbs C.J. in XL Petroleum referred uncritically to the comments of Lord Diplock in Bryanston Finance, his Honour's observation was obiter, and the matter was not the subject of detailed consideration. It is illogical that certain aspects of a rule are abrogated by a statute because the statute does away with the foundation upon which the rule is based, while other aspects of the rule remain, however this is the result of holding that the rule as to the release of joint tortfeasors survived the enactment of s 5. Were 1t necessary to decide the point I would find that the rule as to release has also been abrogated by s 5." Quite apart from the difficulty of regarding the point, to which Somervell L.J. had referred as long ago as 1947, as having escaped notice because not the subject of detailed consideration, and apart from the weight of the authorities to which we have referred, there seem to us with respect to he some difficulties ain adopting this approach. Statutory 24, reforms removing a particular plank from the edifice of the common law do not necessarily bring down whole sections of the structure just because a rule expressly changed or abolished had an historical or a logical connection with other rules of the common law. To forbid such a consequence the rule has been established (and should be adhered to: Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales _v. Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319 at 322, per Brennan J.) that Acts altering the common law should be construed as doing so only so far as is necessary to give effect to their provisions: Hocking v. Western Australian Bank (1909) 9 CLR 738 at 746; American Dair ueen. rid Proprietary Limited v. Blue Rio Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 677 at 682-683, per Mason J., with whom Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Aickin and Brennan JJ. agreed; Pearce and Geddes on Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 3rd ed. (1988), 104- 105; or as Lord Reid put it in Black-Clawson International Ltd v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg [1975] AC 591 at 614, "in the absence of any clear indication to the contrary Parliament can be presumed not to have altered the common law further than was necessary to remedy the 'mischief.'" And where would the process stop? The rule in Duck v. Mayeu has itself linkages with the rule that a release by accord and Satisfaction of one covenantor operates as a release of all other covenantors undertaking the same obligation: see Deanplan Ltd v. Mahmoud [1993} Ch. 151. Indeed, the rule as stated in Duck v. Mayeu by A.L. Smith L.J. (see also Halsbury's statement of it in the paragraph cited earlier) was not confined to a release of one joint tortfeasor, but was a 25. wider rule about the effect of a release upon a joint obligation, including a debt. Coming nearer to home, the present case provides an example of the kind of problem that may arise from too ready an acceptance that a reform plainly directed to a different issue may, almost by accident, have affected a settled rule. The very provision in s. 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), which we have set out above, contains, in subs. 4, provision for recovery of contribution by one joint tortfeasor from another. Had Parliament deliberately set out to amend the law in respect of the effect of a release of a joint tortfeasor who settles a claim, some thought might have been expected to have been given to the interrelationship between that reform and the reform embodied in subs. 4. Appropriate safeguards might have been inserted into the provisions of the statute. But if the earlier subsections of s. 11 are simply strained by judicial interpretation to cover a subject to which no attention was directed by the legislature, any difficulties thus created will not have been overcome by the enactment, but must simply be endured. When the appellant brought his action against Channel 7, it cross-claimed against Channel 9, seeking contribution in respect of any verdict which might be obtained by the appellant. One must ask whether it 1s consonant with justice that a joint tortfeasor who has made an agreed payment in settlement of his liability, and taken a release in respect of it, should then be liable to such a claim for contribution 26. in respect of part of the very same damage sustained by the injured party. The release given by Mr Thompson was clearly intended to cover all publications of this defamation for which Channel 9 bore responsibility, and the amount paid was agreed on that basis. By the rule in Duck v. Mayeu, plaintiffs who have given releases in relation to claims against joint tortfeasors have for at least the last one hundred years known (unless they were negligently advised) the effect of what they were doing, and joint tortfeasors who took such releases upon entering unto settlements have known where they stood. The amounts of settlements have been determined accordingly. But if the dictum in State of New South Wales v. McCloy Hutcherson Pty Ltd is accepted, there can never be certainty about the effect of such a release because claims for contribution may always turn out to be made by joint tortfeasors subsequently sued. Of course, an alert releasee (once the supposed new rule becomes known) may seek some further protection than the normal release, but it was the necessity to take special technical steps, and the undesirability of complications of this kind, which formed the basis of Professor Fleming's criticism of the existing law in the first place. In making these comments about the practical effects of a decision abolishing the rule in Duck v. Mayeu, we have not overlooked the possibility that a released joint tortfeasor, against whom a claim for contribution is subsequently made, 27. might seek to rely on the release to support an argument that he is not an "other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage" within s. 11(4), for the very reason that he has been released. But we do not think any contention to this effect could succeed. Quite soon after the enactment of provisions such as that contained in s. 11(4), the question was raised whether a joint tortfeasor, against whom a claim for contribution was made, could rely on a ground of defence which would have defeated a claim made by the injured person against that joint tortfeasor, if made at the time the claim for contribution arose. One of the early decisions is Nickels v. Parks (1948) 49 SR(NSW) 124. Jordan C.J. (at 129) made it clear that the claim for contribution lay if the joint tortfeasor against whom it was brought "was liable to the injured party for the same tort" (emphasis added), and this meant, as Davidson J. made explicit (at 132), that this joint tortfeasor must be a person who would have been liable "had he been sued at any time for the injuries that resulted". Thus, a statutory defence which arose after some time had elapsed, and would then have barred an action by the plaintiff, could provide no answer to a claim for contribution made at the later time. This view was also adopted in England: Harvey v. R.G. O'Dell Ltd [1958] 2 QB 78 at 109. It was accepted by the High Court of Australia in Brambles Constructions Pty Timited v. Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213, where it was applied to prevent a claimant for contribution being barred by a general limitation. Following the decision in that case, Kerr J. held in Alex Kay Pty Ltd v. 28. Fife (1966) 9 FLR 246 at 253 that a party against whom a claim had been made was not liable because there "was never a point of time at which the third party was liable or could have been held liable to the plaintiff, and for this reason the defendant's claim for contribution must fail". This was not a case of a release after a liability had been incurred, but of a prior agreement preventing a liability ever arising. So the position seems to be that when a joint tortfeasor and an injured party negotiate to settle the injured party's claim for damages, they are presented with alternative solutions having different consequences. They may achieve a settlement on the basis only that the injured party will covenant not to sue the particular joint tortfeasor, in which case the covenantee is at risk should another joint tortfeasor be sued and claim a contribution from him, but the injured party has the benefit of a preserved right of action. Or, they may enter into a release, which will solve the joint tortfeasor's problem, but will do so by eliminating the contingency of a further action against another joint tortfeasor. As the law has been understood for a considerable time now, each party will be advised of these alternatives, and of the consequences, and a suitable settlement can be worked out. The amount of the settlement may differ according to the nature of the agreement reached. In our opinion, it is not appropriate that a judicial decision (by which a code designed to provide prospectively for the securing, so far as possible, of the proper interests of all parties cannot be 29. framed) should now be handed down to disturb this situation. Had Parliament attended to the question, it might have provided that a settlement by release should no longer have the effect given it by Duck v. Mayeu, but should, to the extent the settlement was a reasonable one, bar a proceeding for contribution. We cannot know, but we can be certain of one thing - Parliament did not attend to the question because it did not imagine 1t was reforming the law of release. There is a further reason for the exercise of caution in such an area as this. In Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Limited v. Commissioner for Government Transport (1955) 92 CLR 200, the High Court dealt with the interpretation of one of the paragraphs of s. 5(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). In their joint judgment, Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Webb, Fullagar and Taylor JJ. said (at 211): "The provision under consideration has been transcribed from the English statute in a number of jurisdictions and it is highly convenient that it should be given the meaning and application which it has received in England." The meaning and application presently in question have, as we have shown, been much more widely accepted than simply in England. In our opinion, this Court should not depart from the acceptance of the proposition that the common law doctrine of "release" is unaffected by the Act. 30. Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal. However, having regard to the extent to which the appellant has been successful on the issues upon which the decision against him was actually given, to the importance to the respondents of the issue on which the appellant has failed, and to the special circumstances of the case, we would make no order as to the costs of the appeal. I certify that this and the preceding twenty-nine (29) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett and his Honour Justice Ryan. Date: 19 December 1994 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA _ ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No ACTG 4 of 1994 ) ) DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON Appellant AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TELEVISION PTY LTD First Respondent AND, PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING PTY LTD TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD Second Respondents CORAM Burchett, Miles and Ryan JJ DATE 19 December 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MILES J This ts an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Gallop J) in which the appellant unsuccessfully sued the first respondent (Capital TV) for damages for defamatory statements made during a television broadcast. The first respondent joined the two second respondents as third parties for the purpose of seeking contribution in the event of the appellant recovering judgment against Capital TV The broadcast was "live to air" from the studios of the second respondent (TCN Channel 9) in Willoughby in Sydney via a microwave link to the Capital TV transmitting site on Black Mountain in the ACT From there it was relayed by further microwave link to the Capital TV studios at Watson and thence broadcast by Capital TV to viewers in the ACT and adjoining regions of New South Wales The trial judge found that the appellant had proved the defamatory meanings relied upon (to the effect that the appellant had sexually abused his stepdaughter) but dismissed the claim in the light of the defences raised One defence was that of "Innocent dissemination" His Honour found that defence established The other was a defence that the liability of Capital TV had been avoided by a deed executed on 23 August 1985 by the appellant and by TCN Channel 9 (the deed) The latter defence was raised in two alternative ways It was contended on behalf of Capital TV that the terms of the deed had the effect of a covenant not to sue Capital TV, alternatively it was contended that the deed released a joint tortfeasor, TCN Channel 9, from liability for the plaintiffs cause of action, and that by operation of the release of the joint tortfeasor the appellant no longer had any cause of action against Capital TY With regard to this second defence the trial judge found that the terms of the deed evinced an intention on the part of the appellant to release Capital TV His Honour also expressed the view that insofar as the deed released the joint tortfeasor, TCN Channel 9, It did not operate so as to extinguish any cause of action that the appellant might have had against Capital TV It is now submitted on behalf of the appellant that his Honour was in error both in finding the defence of innocent dissemination established and in his construction of the deed to the effect that it was intended by the plaintiff to release Capital TV from fiability By notice of contention TCN Channel 9 contends that his Honour ought to have found that the deed released Capital TV by virtue of the release of the joint tortfeasor TCN Channel 9 The following facts relevant to the defence of innocent dissemination were found by the trial judge and are not challenged. The libel was contained in the broadcast on Tuesday, 21 February 1984 of "The Today Show", a regular current affairs television program broadcast between 7 am. and 9 am from Monday to Friday The program usually consisted of live interviews in the TCN Channel 9 studios in Willoughby between a television presenter and a guest, together with half hourly, news segments, advertisements and other material The live interviews were not the subject of prepared scripts Capital TV had no prior knowledge of what was being put to air on the program on any particular day There was no arrangement for editing except to the extent that TCN Channel 9 kept Capita! TV informed of the times scheduled for advertisements or commercial breaks During these breaks Capital TV inserted its own commercial material suitable for viewing by local audiences Apart from the commercial breaks, TCN Channel! 9 was in complete control of the contents of the program Both TCN Channel 9 and Capital TV intended and expected that, again apart from the commercial breaks, what was broadcast from Sydney would be disseminated through the Capital TV transmitter in Canberra to local audiences without alteration The trial judge also found that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that TCN Channel 9 or Capital TV was or ever had been other than an entirely reputable television broadcaster Capital TV had no foreknowledge of the content of what was to be broadcast and no forewarning that on the day in question the broadcast was likely to contain anything defamatory Capital TV had no reason to suspect that the program might contain offending material of the nature contained in the libel of the appellant {t might also be observed that although Capital TV had the opportunity to view the program as It was being broadcast (for the purpose amongst others of being alerted to the appropriate moment to insert the local advertising material) there was no suggestion that the circumstances were such that Capital TV should have terminated the broadcast once the defamatory nature of the Interview began to become apparent The defence of innocent dissemination (sometimes called innocent publication or innocent republication) seems to have emerged with the decision of the Court of Appeal in England Emmens v Pottle and Others (1885) 16 QBD 354 It was more precisely formulated in the judgment of Romer L J. in Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library [1900] 2 QB 170 at 180 "The result of the cases ts | think that, as regards a person who Is not the printer or the first or main publisher of the work which contains a libel, but has only taken, what | may call, a subordinate part in disseminating it, in considering whether there has been publication of it by him, the particular circumstances under which he disseminated the work must be considered If he did it in the ordinary way of his business, the nature of the business and the way in which tt was conducted must be looked at, and, if he succeeds in shewing (1 ) that he was innocent of any knowledge of the libel! contained tn the work disseminated by him, (2 ) that there was nothing !n the work or the circumstances under which It came to him or was disseminated by him which ought to have led him to suppose that it contained a libel, and (3) that, when the work was disseminated by him, it was not by any negligence on his part that he did not know that it contained the libel, then, although the dissemination of the work by him was prima facie publication of it, he may nevertheless, on proof of the before- mentioned facts, be held not to have published it But the onus of proving such facts lies on him, and the question of publication or non-publication is in such a case one for the jury " The principle contained in this passage has been recognized and applied many times since then tn courts In England The defence of innocent dissemination has been applied in Canada see Brown, Law of Defamation, Toronto, 1987, p 285 and cases cited But there is no reported case of it having been applied in Australia, nor were we referred to any unreported cases of relevance Gallop J. observed tn the present case that, whilst the defence appears hitherto to have been recognized in relation to books and newspapers, there Is no reason in principle why it should not apply to the publication of defamatory statements made during radio and television broadcasts Gallop J referred to a passage from the judgment of Lord Denning in Goldsmith v Spernngs Ltd and Others [1977] 1 WLR 478 at 487, which contains the following "The distributors of newspapers and periodicals are nothing more that conduit pipes in the channel of distribution They have nothing whatever to do with the contents They do not read them - there is no time to do so Common sense and fairness require that no subordinate distributor - from top to bottom - should be held liable for a libel contained in it unless he knew or ought to have known that the newspaper or periodical contained a libel on the plaintiff himself, that is to say, that it contained a libel on the plaintiff which could not be justified or excused, and | should have thought that it was for the plaintiff to prove this And the Restatement bears this out see Restatement Torts, 1965 Supplement, s 581, Comment" Counsel for the appellant did not suggest that defence of innocent dissemination was not available in Australia, but submitted that the nature of the defence was such that It should not be applied to a television broadcast It was submitted that a rebroadcaster of a television program such as Capital TV in the present case was in a different position from the disseminator of printed material The television rebroadcaster takes it upon itself to engage in that activity for commercial reasons in the knowledge that it has no opportunity or capacity to control the content of the material being broadcast Further, so it was submitted, the television rebroadcaster has the capacity to cause infinitely greater harm by the broadcast of defamatory material than has the bookseller or news vendor There is some support for these submissions in the United States Lord Denning points out that the American Restatement supports the defence of innocent dissemination in the case of a distributor of newspapers and periodicals. The Restatement of the Law of Torts, 2nd ed (1976) In s 581 under the heading "Transmission of Defamation Published by Third Person" states as a rule that one who only delivers or transmits defamatory matter published by a third person is liable if, but only if, he knows or has reason to know of its defamatory character, and that by way of exception, one who broadcasts defamatory matter by means of radio or television 1s subject to the same liability as an original publisher It also states that a news dealer Is not liable for defamatory statements appearing In the newspapers or magazines he sells if he neither knows nor has reason to know of the defamatory article The protection of the rule is said to extend to bookshops, libraries and telegraph companies But a radio or broadcasting company Is regarded as more analogous to a newspaper publisher than to a news dealer and as "an original primary publisher" is lable for the broadcast of defamatory material The Restatement does not distinguish between original broadcasting and rebroadcasting According to Amencan Junsprudence, 2nd ed, Vol 50, 862-863, many cases hold that "even in the absence of the slightest negligence on their part, radio and broadcasting companies are absolutely liable for the broadcasting of defamatory statements" The work cites Coffey v Midland Broadcasting Co 8 F Supp 889 In that case a Missouri broadcaster carried a program from New York in circumstances where the operators of the loca! station had no means of knowing that defamatory words would be carried on the network program and no means of stopping the program on their utterance The local broadcaster was nevertheless found liable in defamation The question therefore arises whether this Court should regard the question of the application of the defence of innocent dissemination to a television rebroadcast as free from authority, and, If so, whether this Court ought to formulate what is in effect a special rule bearing in mind the submissions put on behalf of the appellant and the principles enunciated in the American texts It may be that with the development of modern technology this Court could find itself in a similar position to that of the Court of Appeal in 1885 in Emmens v. Pottle, when the mass circulation of newspapers had led to a perceived need to resolve problems which the law had not previously confronted In my own view, whilst there 1s much to be said in favour of the submissions and of the American approach, they raise issues which are essentially matters of policy rather than tssues of law There is a real question as to whether they should be resolved by a court or by the elected legislature | agree with Gallop J that there is no logical reason, in accordance with the ordinary processes of the development of the law through judicial decision, why the defence of innocent dissemination or innocent republication should be restricted to printed material and not extended to television broadcasts What Lord Denning said about "conduit pipes in the channel of distribution" is applicable to the dissemination of television broadcasts as it is to the distribution of newspapers To deny the extension of the principle to television broadcasting would, In my view, be a decision of policy rather than an application of judicial reasoning Accordingly, | think that Capital TV was entitled to succeed upon the defence of innocent dissemination and the first ground of appeal must fail The further ground of appeal relates to the deed executed by the appellant and TCN Channel 9 on 23 August 1985 Before the deed was executed the appellant had sued TCN Channel 9 In the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming damages for the broadcast of the offending material within the State of New South Wales Those proceedings were terminated by the execution of the deed. The terms of the deed are as follows "THIS DEED Is made the 23rd day of August 1985 BETWEEN EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON of Captain's Flat in the State of New South Wales (hereinafter called "the Releasor') of the one part AND TON CHANNEL NINE PTY LIMITED of 54-58 Park Street, Sydney in the said State (hereinafter called "the Releasee") of the other part WHEREAS A The Releasee ts the licensee of the television station TCN Channel! Nine, B An action has lately been commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales No 11170 of 1984 by the Releasor against the Releasee claiming damages for defamation arising out of the publication of certain words and images ("the matter complained of") by the Releasee on a television program called "The Today Show" on 21 February, 1984, Cc The Releasor has Incurred costs and expenses in and about the prosecution of his claim and in and about certain interlocutory proceedings taken in connection therewith, D It has been agreed between the Releasor and the Releasee that the Releasee without admitting any lability whatsoever will pay to the Releasor the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000 00) in full satisfaction of his claim and all costs and expenses incurred by him in and about the prosecution of the same, E For the consideration aforesaid the Releasor has agreed to give the covenants hereinafter contained NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS That without admission of liability and in consideration of the Releasee paying to the Releasor or his solicitors the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,00000) inclusive of all costs, disbursements and expenses and without admission of liability, the Releasor for himself, his heirs, executors and assigns hereby 1 Forever releases and discharges the Releasee and its servants agents and related companies their servants and agents from all actions suits causes of action claims and demands whatsoever which the Releasor now has or at any time hereafter may have or but for the execution of this Deed could would or might have had against the Releasee or any of its servants agents or related companies their servants and agents arising out of or in respect of the publication of the said matter the subject of the said action 2 Forever releases and discharges the Releasee and its servants agents and related companies their servants and agents from all actions suits causes of action claims and demands whatsoever which the Release now has or at any time hereafter may have or but for the execution of this Deed could would or might have had against the Releasee or any of its servants agents or related companies arising out of any other publication of the matter complained of by or on behalf of the Releasee its servants agents and related companies, their servants and agents up to and including the date of this Deed relating in any way to the Releasor 3 Forever releases and discharges the Releasor and its servants agents and related companies from all actions sults causes of action claims and demands whatsoever which the Releasor now has or at any time hereafter may have or but for the execution of this Deed could would or might have had against the Releasee or any of its servants agents or related companies arising out of or in respect to the publication or broadcast of any part of the matter complained of over television station TCN9 Sydney or over any other radio or television station or by any other means whatsoever or In respect of or arising out of any other publication whatsoever by or on behalf of the Releasor its related companies servants and agents up to and including the date of this Deed relating in any way to the Releasor 4 Covenants that in any proceedings which he.may bring tn the future against the Releasee or any of its servants agents or related companies their servants and agents no use will be made by him of this Deed or of any publication of the matter complained of or of any publications made by or on behalf of the Releasee its servants and agents and related companies their servants and agents up to and including the date of this Deed 5 Covenants that he will not make any public or private comment or statement in relation to the litigation instituted by him against the Releasee or the settlement thereof or the terms of this Deed 6 Covenants that he will forthwith discontinue the said action and will file in the said court within ten days of the date hereof a Notice of Discontinuance of the same and serve a capy thereof on the Releasee's solicitors AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED That for the purpose of this Deed a company shall be related to another company if it is so deemed by the application of the provisions of Section 7 of the Companies Act, 1961 (New South Wales) (as amended) IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first hereinbefore written THE COMMON SEAL of ) TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY ) LIMITED was hereunto ) ) ) ) affixed in accordance with Its Articles of Association and in the presence of (Common seal) (Signed) SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED by the said EDWARD CECIL THOMPSON tn the presence of we eee ee (Signed) (Signed)" The case for Capital TV as It relies on the deed falls into two parts First, it is submitted that on their true construction the words of the deed should be read as a covenant not to sue TCN Channel 9 for the broadcast in question, and further, not to sue Capital TV either The second and alternative submission, which is not unrelated to the first, 1s that the deed ts by its nature truly a release and not merely a covenant not to sue, so that it operates with the effect of releasing from liability not only TCN Channel 9 but also all persons who participated jointly in the conduct which provides the cause of action upon which the appellant as releasor would have been entitled to rely but'for the release An agreement which settles or compromises an action brought against a joint tortfeasor will be construed as a covenant not to sue and not as a general release which extinguishes the cause of action "unless It Is plain that the agreement was intended by the plaintiff to operate as a release to the other joint tortfeasors from their liability" Bryanston Finance Ltd and Others v de Vnes and Another [1975] 1 QB 703 per Diplock LJ at 732 In my view, the deed cannot be construed as a covenant not to sue Capital TV It does not evince an intention that the appellant intended by its terms to render Capital TV immune from action for liability arising out of the publication of the matter complained of by way of broadcast by Capital TV from its Watson studios Each of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the operative clauses of the deed are explicit in identifying the persons who are to have the benefit of their provisions Those persons are "the releasee or any of its servants agents or related companies their servants and agents" The trial judge concluded that Capital TV was not a servant or agent of TCN Channel 9 in relation to the broadcast tn question nor in any other relevant respect and that finding is not challenged Similarly it is not contended that his Honour should have found that TCN Channel 9 and Capital TV were related companies Capital TV transmitted the broadcast in its own right and in no way as the agent or representative of TCN Channel 9 Clause 1 of the deed restricts the release to cause or causes of action in respect of which proceedings No 11170 of 1984 were brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales Those proceedings claimed damages arising out of the broadcast to an audience in New South Wales through the television broadcasting station known as TCN Channel 9 There was no allegation that the broadcasting station was situated outside New South Wales The evidence in the present case shows that tt was at Willoughby tn Sydney The cause of action in the proceedings in New South Wales Is distinct from the cause of action in the proceedings In the ACT Supreme Court Clause 1 cannot be read to extend to the broadcast in the ACT by Capital TV Clause 2 of the deed extends the release from the cause of action In proceedings No 11170 of 1984 to afl causes of action arising from any other publication or broadcast whatsoever of the matter complained of, but so long as the other publication ts by or on behalf of TCN Channel! 9, Its related companies servants and agents Clause 3 purports to further extend the release to all causes of action arising from publication or broadcast of the matter complained of over any radio or television station or by any other means It is difficult to see what the essential difference is between clause 2 and clause 3 In any event, clause 3 Is, like clause 2, restricted to other publications by or on behalf of TCN Channel 9, Its related companies servants and agents Clause 4, which relates to future proceedings, cannot be read to include Capital TV within its provisions As the publication by Capital TV was not on behalf of TCN Channel 9 and as Capital TV was not a related company servant or agent of TCN Channel 9, clauses 1 to 4 do not by their terms affect the liability for the publication of the libel in the ACT by Capital TV. Nor do the remaining clauses of the deed have any such effect Furthermore, in seeking to rely upon the provisions of the deed to which it ts not a party, Capital TV faces the difficulty of lack of privity of contract "It must be accepted that, according to our law, a person not a party to a contract may not himself sue upon It so as directly to enforce its obligations" Coulls v Bagot's Executor and Trustee Company Limited and Others (1967) 119 CLR 460 at 478 per Barwick C.J. Although the rule has been criticised and in some jurisdictions abolished by statute, it is well entrenched If A covenants with B not to sue C, and A subsequently sues C, C will not be able to raise by way of defence the covenant between A and B_ That Is not to say that B does not have a right to performance of the covenant, but B's right may not be enforced by C In construing the deed, the trial judge took into account evidence given by the appellant about what he took to be the meaning and effect of its provisions Whilst no objection was taken to that evidence being called, it does appear to be in breach of the parole evidence rule The deed of release on the face of It represents the whole of the transactions between the parties and there was nothing in the evidence of the appellant to justify a conclusion that the deed did not constitute the totality of the agreement between the appellant and TCN Channel 9 | conclude that on the true construction of the deed that it does not operate as a covenant not to sue Capital TV and, further, if it did, the doctrine of privity of contract would prevent Capital TV relying upon it as a defence to the appellant's claim However, the further submission is made that if the deed operates as a true release from liability of any who 1s a joint tortfeasor, then It operates for the benefit of all who would have been liable on the cause of action but for the release It 1s true that at common law a release, like a judgment, extinguishes the cause of action and thus deprives the releasor, who was formerly entitled to enforce the cause of action against ail who were responsible for the conduct which gave rise to the cause of action, of any remaining right to rely on It or enforce tt Thus any joint wrongdoer 1s entitled to rely upon the release to avoid liability on the cause of action, not because of any contractual immunity but because there Is no longer any cause of action. The doctrine of privity of contract applies to the enforcement of a covenant not to sue on a cause of action but does not apply when the cause of action has been extinguished by release An initial question in the present case is whether TCN Channel 9 and Capital TV were joint tortfeasors, that is to say whether the conduct of each contributed to the broadcast in the ACT from the Capital TV studios at Watson The geographical and jurisdictional aspects are unusual TCN Channel 9 did not commit any act within the ACT What tt did was to transmit from its New South Wales studios signals which, in accordance with an arrangement with Capital TV, were picked up via microwave link by the Capital TV transmitter on Black Mountain, further transmitted by Capital TV to its studio at Watson, and then broadcast or rebroadcast from there to the viewing audience That, in my view, gives rise to a sufficient nexus between the conduct of TCN Channel 9 and that of Capital TV to lead to the conclusion that each participated in the broadcast The fact that the conduct of TCN Channel 9 occurred outside the ACT does not, in my view, stand in the way of a conclusion that TCN ae Channel 9 participated jointly with Capital TV in the broadcast from the studio of the latter in the ACT The next question is whether the principle that the release of one Joint tortfeasor releases all joint tortfeasors has been affected by s 11 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT) That section provides as follows "11(1) This section applies where damage ts suffered by a person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not) (2) Judgment recovered against a tort-feasor liable in respect of the damage Is not a bar to an action against any other person who would, if sued, have been liable as a joint tort-feasor in respect of the same damage (3) If more than one action Is brought in respect of the damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered, or for the benefit of the estate, or of the wife, husband, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, parent or child, of that person against tort-feasors liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tort-feasors or otherwise) - (a) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions by way of damages do not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given, and (b) in any of those actions other than that in which judgment is first given, the plaintiff is not entitled to costs unless the court Is of opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action (4) A tort-feasor liable in respect of the damage may recover contribution from any other tort-feasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tort-feasor or otherwise, but no person 1s entitled to recover contribution under this section from a person entitled to be indemnified by him in respect of the liability in respect of which the coniribution 1s sought (5) Where the tort causing the damage was, or the torts causing the damage were, committed by the husband or wife of the person suffering the damage and some other person, that other person may recover contribution as mentioned in the last preceding sub-section from the husband or wife, as if the husband or wife had been liable to the person suffering the damage " There Js no judicial authority on the precise question whether the provision in sub-s 11(2) relating to a judgment recovered against a joint tortfeasor has the effect that the release of one joint tortfeasor from liability is no bar to an action against any other joint tortfeasor The provisions of similar legislation in New South Wales were considered by the High Court in XL Petroleum (NSW) Proprietary Limited v Caltex Oi (Australia) Proprietary Limited (1985) 155 CLR 448. That was a case concerned with the question whether exemplary damages could be awarded against one only of a number of joint tortfeasors who were found liable for compensatory damages Gibbs C J at 456 set out the common law principles, namely that although two or more joint tortfeasors may commit a tort, there is only one cause of action, that a Judgment obtained against one joint tortfeasor is a bar to an action against the others for the same cause of action, even if the judgment remains unsatisfied, (the rule in Bansmead v Harnson (1871) LR 7 CP 547) and that a cause of action arising out of a joint tort merges in the first judgment obtained. His Honour added, "On the same principle a release of one tortfeasor released all" and cited Cocke v Jennor (1614) Hob 66, [80 ER 214] and Duck v Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 at 513s In the latter case It was said by AL Smith, L J for the Court of Appeal "It 1s, we think, clear law, that a release granted to one joint tortfeasor, or to one joint debtor, operates as a discharge of the other joint tortfeasor, or the other joint debtor, the reason being that the cause of action, which Is one and indivisible, having been released, all persons otherwise liable thereto are consequently released" The Court of Appeal decided nevertheless that the letter written by the plaintiffs solicitor acknowledging receipt of two guineas "In full discharge of your personal lability without prejudice to my client's claim against Miss M Mayeu" was a covenant not to sue the joint debtor and not a release of the joint debt The enunciation of principles of law in the passage quoted was therefore obiter In XL Petroleum, Gibbs C J expressed the view that the rule in Bnnsmead v Harnson and the underlying common law principle that there was only one cause of action were abolished by the statute and said at 459-60. "The reason for the rule was that there was only one cause of action against the joint torifeasors, but that is no longer the position - the statute has abolished, 'in its entirety' the old common law principle that a person who suffers damage by a Joint tort has only one cause of action which merges in the first judgment recovered in respect of it Surely the statutory provision was not intended to abolish only the doctrine of merger, for it was not primarily directed to the question of merger, and there is no reason for selecting one aspect of the principle rather than another as that which it was intended to affect, the whole principle should be held to have gone It seems to me impossible now to hold that there is any principle that would prevent a plaintiff from recovering different sums from different joint tortfeasors if he brings separate actions against them, provided that some are liable for exemplary damages and others are not, and the same must be true tf the joint tortfeasors are all sued in one action " Brennan J said at 466 "The rules prescribed by pars (a) and (b) of s 5(1) do not diminish the common law right of a plaintiff to sue any or all joint tortfeasors for compensatory damages and, on recovering a judgment, to enforce it against any or all of the tortfeasors against whom the judgment is given At common law, if the judgment debtor from whom the plaintiff first sought satisfaction of the Judgment was impecunious, satisfaction might be sought from other judgment debtors until the whole of the judgment debt was paid Under the statute, the plaintiff's right to recover a judgment against and to seek satisfaction from any or all joint tortfeasors 1s enhanced by the statutory right to bring successive actions against each joint tortfeasor A plaintiff may now recover a separate judgment against each joint tortfeasor and he may seek satisfaction of each judgment recovered from the judgment debtor, subject to s 5(1)(b) which precludes recovery of sums by way of damages In excess of the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given As s 5(1)(a) confers on a plaintiff the right to recover judgments in successive actions against the respective tortfeasors, the unity of the common law cause of action against all joint tortfeasors is severed " There has been a divergence of opinion in this Court as to the effect of provisions ike s11 InJF. & BE. Palmer Pty Ltd v Blowers & Lowe Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 509, Burchett J took the statement of principle in Duck v Mayeu to be accepted by Gibbs CJ inX L Petroleum and also by Lord Diplock in Bryanston Finance Ltd v. de Vnes where it was said of similar legislation in England. "The technical doctrine of release ts unaffected by the Act" On the other hand, in State of New South Wales v. McCloy Hutcherson Pty Ltd and Others (1993) 116 ALR 363, Beazley J expressed the view that the "rule" in Duck v Mayeu that release of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of all joint tortfeasors was abrogated by the statutory provisions The view so expressed, however, was obiter and not necessary to her Honour's conclusions because she found as a matter of construction that the arrangements in question were not intended to operate as a release at all but simply as individual covenants not to sue Gallop J observed in the Supreme Court that there was no submission on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the common law rule had been abrogated by s.11 However, having rejected the contention of Capital TV that TCN Channel 9 was not a joint tortfeasor, his Honour found himself persuaded by the reasons of Beazley J to the effect that the release of TCN Channel! 9 as a tortfeasor did not operate to release Capital TV Again, however, because of the view Gallop J had taken as to the construction of the deed, that Is to say that it expressed the intention of the parties that Capital TV be released from Its liability, his Honour's view as to the effect of s 11 was, Ike that of Beazley J , obiter and not necessary to his decision N Having come to the contrary view as to the construction of the deed, | should express my own opinion as to the effect of s 11. Again, it is not strictly necessary to do so in the light of my conclusion that Capital TV should succeed on Its defence of innocent dissemination However, if that conclusion be wrong, the matter of the effect of the release must be determined That matter should be determined as far as possible in the light of the judgments of the High Court in XL Petroleum It is true that that case was not concerned with the effect of a release but with the question whether the plaintiff could hold a sum of damages including exemplary damages awarded against a single tortfeasor when in the same action the jury had awarded a lesser sum by way of compensatory damages only against the other Joint tortfeasors Nevertheless, the expression of opinion by Gibbs C J (with whom Mason J, as he then was, Murphy J. and Wilson J. agreed) and of Brennan J, to the effect that s 11 abolishes the common law rule that the cause of action against all joint tortfeasors merges in the first Judgment recovered, must be binding on this Court Accordingly, the appellant, having released the joint tortfeasor TCN Channel 9, ts not precluded thereby from proceeding to recover judgment against the other joint tortfeasor Capital TV For those reasons [ would dismiss the notice of contention filed on behalf of Capital TV However, because Capital TV Is entitled to succeed on the defence of innocent dissemination, as Gallop J held, the appeal should be dismissed with costs and | would so order | certify that this and the preceding eighteen (18) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for vcament y his Honour Justice Miles ff Associate Loca I —— 19 Decembey 1994 Counsel for the Appellant: Solicitors for the Appellant: Counsel for the First Respondent: Solicitors for the First Respondent: Counsel for the Second Respondents: Solicitors for the Second Respondents: Date of hearing: Mr B.J. Salmon Q.C. with Mr C.P. McKeown Murphy & Moon Mr W.H. Nicholas Q.C. with Mr A.S. Martin Sly & Weigall Mr B.R. McClintock MacPhillamy Cummins & Gibson 18 and 19 April 1994