Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING

CORPORATION APPELLANT

AND

JAMES RYAN O'NEILL RESPONDENT

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46

28 September 2006

H1/2006

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania made on 29 August 2005 and, in its place, order that:

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) Order 1 of the orders made by Crawford J on 22 April 2005 be set aside insofar as it applies to the appellant.

3. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania

Representation:

R J Whitington QC with A T S Dawson for the appellant (instructed ABC Legal Services)

P W Tree SC with J E Green for the respondent (instructed by Hobart Community Legal Service)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill

Defamation – Injunctions – Interlocutory injunctions – Interlocutory injunction to restrain publication – Appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime – Principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted – Relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions – Significance of value of free speech – Significance of avoiding "trial by media" – Whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded – Significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.

Injunctions – Interlocutory injunctions – Defamation – Whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter – Relationship between Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 and American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 – Whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by Beecham – Whether Full Court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.