Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 10) [2020] FCA 1636 File number(s): NSD 850 of 2014
Judgment of: RARES J
Date of judgment: 22 October 2020
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – damages – particulars of mitigation – whether directly relevant background context – whether applicant's conduct provoked publication complained of EVIDENCE – whether questioning of applicant in cross-examination permissible where respondent had no defence – whether material relied on in mitigation sufficiently connected to assessment of damages or applicant's credibility
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 s 18
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing (2019) 271 FCR 632 Broome v Cassell Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 Burstein v Time Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579 Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2018] FCA 593 Re Emergent Capital Limited [2011] 2 CILR 329 Scott v Sampson 8 QBD 491 Speidel v Plato Films Ltd [1961] AC 1090 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 3) [2017] FCA 1170 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 5) [2017] FCA 1572 Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 3469 Warren v Random House Group [2009] QB 600
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
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