Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 9) [2019] FCA 1383 File number: NSD 2179 of 2017
Judge: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 28 August 2019
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – application for permanent injunction to restrain republication of the defamation – whether, if permanent injunction not granted, leave would be required to commence further proceedings in relation to the same or any other publication of the same or like matter pursuant to s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for permanent injunction to restrain republication of the defamatory imputations – whether injunction should issue –consideration of Court's jurisdiction to grant permanent injunctions – consideration of whether there is a real or appreciable risk of republication of the defamation – consideration of the public interest in the right of free speech – where carve out in proposed injunction for fair report of proceeding and appeal proceeding – whether the ordinary reasonable reader would read expressions of disagreement and criticisms in post-judgment articles as comments or expressions of opinion or whether they repeat or republish the defamatory imputations
Legislation: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 4, 23, 29 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2004) 135 FCR 105 Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2012) 84 NSWLR 90 Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351 Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245 Ghosh v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 90 Graham v Powell (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1319 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 355 (Oct); 4 All ER 732; 1 WLR 3024 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 750; 237 FCR 127 Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 Munsie v Dowling (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 709 Nokia Corporation v Truong [2005] FCA 1141; 66 IPR 511 Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1520; 110 IPR 184 Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692 Proctor v Bayley (1889) 42 Ch D 390 Rastogi v Nolan [2010] NSWSC 735 Reid v Dukic [2016] ACTSC 344 Roache v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1998] EMLR 161 Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 717 Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 201
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