Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2021] FCA 500 File number: NSD 185 of 2020
Judgment of: WIGNEY J
Date of judgment: 14 May 2021
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – where ABC broadcast a special investigation into the horse racing industry in Australia (the report) – where the report included footage of the mistreatment and slaughter of former thoroughbred racehorses – where the report included an interview with regulator, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Board of Racing NSW, Peter V'landys – where the report was made available for viewing on the ABC website and in the form of a transcript – defamation proceedings against broadcaster alleging numerous defamatory imputations had been conveyed by the report – consideration of relevant principles to be applied in determining whether the report conveyed defamatory imputations – whether the report would have conveyed the alleged imputations to an ordinary reasonable person – where none of the pleaded imputations, or any imputations not differing in substance from them, were found to have been conveyed by the report – application dismissed DEFAMATION – where applicant sought general, aggravated and special damages for non-economic loss – where aggravated damages sought on the basis of alleged malice on the part of the respondents – relevant principles in relation to malice – malice not established
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140(2) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 30(4), 36
Cases cited: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing (2019) 271 FCR 632; [2019] FCAFC 125 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 345; [2012] HCA 17 Barrow v Bolt [2013] VSC 226 Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89 Chau v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) (2012) 386 ALR 36; [2021] FCA 44 Chau v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 185 Flegg v Hallett [2015] QSC 167 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 237 FCR 33; [2015] FCA 652 Hughes v Risbridger [2009] EWHC 3244 (QB) Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Wagner (2020) 385 ALR 328; [2020] QCA 221 Rackham v Sandy [2005] EWHC 482 (QB) Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 57 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496 Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497 Trkulja v Google LLC (2018) 263 CLR 149; [2018] HCA 25 Wagner v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 284
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