Peluso v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 213

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Peluso v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 213 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division Defamation List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20403/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 March 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 22 March 2000

John Peluso (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Radio 2UE Pty Limited (Second Defendant) Alan Jones (Third Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Dunford J

COUNSEL : CA Evatt (Plaintiff) TEF Hughes QC with BA Connell (Second & Third Defendants) SOLICITORS : John Doolan Solicitor (Plaintiff) Bush Burke & Company (Second & Third Defendants) CATCHWORDS : DEFAMATION - imputations - capacity CASES CITED : Morris v Newcastle Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 260 Kermode v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (unreprted - Levine J - 29 August 1997) DECISION : See para 21.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DUNFORD J WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH 2000 20403/97 - John PELUSO & anor v TCN CHANNEL 9 PTY LIMITED & 2 ors JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: On 6 May 1997 the third defendant, Alan Jones, made certain remarks in a broadcast over radio station 2UE, which is owned and operated by the second defendant, Radio 2UE Pty Limited, which the first plaintiff, a barrister, claims were defamatory to him. 2 The broadcast, the text of which is set out in Schedule A1 to the Statement of Claim, related to certain proceedings in the Local Court where 4 Koreans had received what the third defendant had regarded as light sentences for a number of serious burglaries on the basis that they were persons of previously good character with no prior convictions, whereas they were in fact seasoned criminals with convictions for serious offences in Korea, and the non-disclosure to the Magistrate of their criminal records by either the prosecuting police or by their barrister, the first plaintiff. Mr Jones' introductory remarks indicated that the subject had been discussed on the radio the previous day. 3 On 29 August 1997 Levine J ordered that a number of the imputations as then pleaded be struck out, but gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead, which has now been done by the fourth Amended Statement of Claim. Once again, the defendants object to the imputations pleaded and this is a hearing pursuant to s 7A(1) of the Defamation Act 1974 and SCR Pt 31 to determine whether the matters complained of are reasonably capable of carrying the imputations pleaded. 4 I shall deal with the imputations seriatim. There is no imputation (a). Imputation (b) is: "The first plaintiff so wrongly conducted himself as a lawyer that he warranted an investigation by the Bar Association."