Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 1031

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 1031 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20206/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 10/10/02, 11/10/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 November 2002

PARTIES : Paul George Reading v Australian Broadcasting Corporation JUDGMENT OF : Cripps AJ

COUNSEL : Plaintiff - Mr B McClintock SC Defendant - Mr T Tobin QC & Mr N A Nichols SOLICITORS : Plaintiff- Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers Defendant - Mr Michael Martin, ABC legal CATCHWORDS : Defamation - TV program in three segments - defamatory imputation said to arise out of segment two - should the plaintiff be compelled to plead the whole program. CASES CITED : Morgan Tsvangirai v The Special Broadcasting Service [Unreported, NSWSC, 14 June 2002 DECISION : The whole of the program be pleaded. The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

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

CRIPPS AJ

5 NOVEMBER 2002 20206/02

Paul George READING –v- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: On 7 April 1997, the defendant published a "Four Corners" program. It was in three segments and lasted approximately forty-five minutes. The first segment (about thirty minutes) was concerned with what were said to be attempts by Mr Kerry Packer and/or persons on his behalf to ensure that he and Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd (CPH) together with Circus to ensure that his rival, the combination of Showboat –Leighton syndicate did not succeed. 2 The second segment (about ten minutes) concerned the relationship between CPH and ANI Limited (ANI), in which reference was made to payments of money "approved by Kerry Packer" to two members of the ANI board, of which one was the plaintiff, prior to the board deciding to buy a company owned by CPH and which ultimately caused ANI to loose many millions of dollars by which time CPH had long since ceased to be a shareholder. 3 The third segment (about five minutes) was concerned with attempts by Mr Packer and/or Consolidated Press Holdings to gain control of the Fairfax Companies, and segments were presented showing Mr Packer arguing vigorously with members of a Senate Inquiry. 4 The question in the present case is whether the plaintiff should be compelled, in light of the imputations alleged, to plead the entire "Four Corners" program dealing with the activities of Mr Packer and his Companies and those companies associated with them, or whether it is permissible for him to plead just the segment that referred to the ANI transaction. 5 The Plaintiff, Mr Redding has taken proceedings, alleging that he was defamed. The imputations alleged are: (a) that he corruptly accepted a bribe of $2 million; (b). he dishonestly and in breach of his duties as a director of ANI, voted for ANI to make a disastrously bad decision to buy ABT, because Kerry Packer, whose company owned ABT, agreed to pay him $2 million; (c) that as a director of ANI, the plaintiff dishonestly changed calculations valuing the deal for ANI to buy ABT, so that the deal would not have to be approved by shareholders; (d) that the Plaintiff, as a director of ANI acted contrary to shareholder's interests by deliberately concealing from shareholders key aspects of the deal for ANI to purchase ABT; and (e) the Plaintiff, as a director of ANI defrauded shareholders of ANI by dishonestly changing calculations, valuing the deal for ANI to buy ABT so that the deal would not have to be approved by shareholders. 6 The issue before me is not whether those imputations are capable of arising from the segment referred to. It is whether the plaintiff should be compelled to publish the whole of the "Four Corners" programs – the three segments -so that it is open to the defendant to maintain that in the context of the program the imputations contended for by the plaintiff are not those conveyed. 7 Mr Tobin QC submits that the whole program should be pleaded because he wishes to rely on references throughout the program to the general forcefulness and determination of Mr Packer. He submits that the issue at trial should be whether the jury may take into account other parts of the program, not pleaded at present, as colouring the meaning attached to so much of the programs dealt with the conduct of Mr Reading. He submits that the program was directed to "the exercise of power in the community" by Mr Packer and he is entitled to put to the jury that it was not being alleged in the program that Mr Reading committed the offences referred to in the imputations as pleaded.