Vajda v Nine Network Australia Limited & ors [2000] NSWSC 873

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Vajda v Nine Network Australia Limited & ors [2000] NSWSC 873 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13099/1993 HEARING DATE(S) : 26/05/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 31 August 2000

Tibor Timothy Vajda - plaintiff Nine Network Austalia Limited - 1st def PARTIES : Magda Bardy - 2nd defendant TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited - 3rd def Endre Csapo - 4th def JUDGMENT OF : Bell J

T Molomby - plaintiff COUNSEL : B McClintock SC - 1st and 3rd defendants Mr Brereton SC - 4th defendant Bertock & Associates - plaintiff SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin - 1st and 3rd defendants Andrew A Torok - 4th defendant CATCHWORDS : Contempt - improper pressure on a litigant. CASES CITED : Harkianakis v Skalkos (1977) 42 NSWLR 22 Attorney-General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514. DECISION : Rulings on evidence

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

BELL J

Thursday, 31 August, 2000 13099/1993 - Tibor Timothy VAJDA v NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 009071167 & ORS

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: This matter was restored to the Defamation List on the application of the first and third defendants. Mr McClintock SC who appeared on their behalf invited me, pursuant to Pt 38 r 8 (and Pt 65 r 5) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 ("the SCR"), to strike out portions of the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn on 1 February 2000 ("the affidavit"). Mr Brereton SC, who appeared on behalf of the fourth defendant, made a like application with respect to a number of the paragraphs of the affidavit relating to his client. 2 I propose to briefly set out something of the history of the matter. On 30 May 1993 a segment was broadcast on Channel 9's "60 Minutes" program concerning the plaintiff. The following week a short further segment on "60 Minutes" dealt with the same subject matter. The second defendant was interviewed in the course of the program. It was her account that while she was living in Budapest in 1951 she had been interrogated and assaulted by the plaintiff who was then an officer in the State Security Authority (AVH). The latter organisation was described in the program as being the Hungarian Government's version of the Soviet KGB. 3 The plaintiff brought proceedings in defamation against the first defendant by Statement of Claim which was filed on 13 August 1993 (proceedings No 13099 of 1993). In 1995 the plaintiff filed a Further Amended Statement of Claim. A Defence was duly filed and thereafter by letter dated 13 June 1997 the solicitors acting for the first, second and third defendants supplied particulars of the same. 4 On 16 November 1998 a further segment was broadcast on the "60 Minutes" program concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant ("the program"). In the course of the program it was asserted that the ABC had commissioned a documentary titled "Victims" which was to tell the story of both the plaintiff and the second defendant. The presenter in some introductory remarks described the second defendant as believing that she was being persecuted all over again. In this context the presenter said of the plaintiff: "this man is to be the subject of a taxpayer funded documentary branding him as a victim". In general terms the program went on to claim that there was evidence, independent of the allegations made by the second defendant, that the plaintiff had behaved in a violent and oppressive way while a member of the AVH. A number of persons were interviewed including Dr Tibor Zinner, historian, and Dr Laszlo Varga, Director of State Archives, Budapest. 5 By Notice of Motion filed on 2 July 1999 the plaintiff sought orders including that the first and third defendants be adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of the publication of the program. Additionally, the plaintiff by his Notice of Motion sought to have the fourth defendant joined to the proceedings and that he be adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of the publication in the newspaper "Magyar Elet" on 26 November 1998 of an article ('the article") in the Hungarian language which referred to the program and made certain further observations concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant. 6 On 3 February 2000 the plaintiff filed an Amended Statement of Charge pursuant to Pt 55 r 7 of the SCR. Annexed to that Amended Statement of Charge were particulars with respect to the charge brought against both the first and third defendants and the fourth defendant. 7 The plaintiff served a copy of the affidavit on the first and third defendants on 3 February 2000. Thereafter it appears that the first and third defendants took steps to have the matter relisted. 8 The plaintiff by his particulars of the Amended Statement of Charge claims with respect to the first and third defendants that the publication of the program was intended by them to interfere with the course of justice by subjecting him to improper pressure not to proceed with proceedings No 13099 of 1993 in this Court ("the principal proceedings"). The plaintiff also contends that the program had, as a matter of practical reality, a tendency to interfere with the course of justice in relation to the principal proceedings by subjecting him to improper pressure to desist from those proceedings. Both these aspects of the program's alleged tendency to interfere with the course of justice are particularised as follows: