LOO v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 834

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : LOO v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 834 HEARING DATE(S) : 1 and 2 July 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1 DECISION : The Defendant's application is dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS : Trial under s7A of Defamation Act PARTIES : Plaintiff: Ronald Loo Defendant: Regional Publishers Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20458/02 COUNSEL : Plaintiff: TS Hale SC; J White Defendant: B McClintock SC; M Richardson SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Margiotta Solicitors Defendant: Gilbert & Tobin

- 7 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST 20458/2002 HULME J

6 August 2003 Ronald LOO v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD

Judgment 1 His Honour: On 1 and 2 July last a trial under s7A of the Defamation Act was held in this matter. During the course of the trial the Defendant indicated that it wished to make application that I should hold that a number of the imputations alleged were incapable of arising. 2 I adopted, without dissent, the course of allowing the suggested imputations to go to the jury without prejudice to the Defendant's application. The jury found that 2 of the imputations the subject of the application had not been shown to arise. These Reasons deal with the balance. The contending arguments are contained in submissions forwarded to my Associate on 4 and 22 July on behalf of the Defendant and on 11 July on behalf of the Plaintiff. 3 There were 4 publications which led to the proceedings - (i) An article in the Northern Daily Leader of 26 August 2002, (ii) The contents of a poster published on 30 August 2002 advertising the issue of the Northern Daily Leader of that day, (iii) An article in the Northern Daily Leader of 30 August 2002, and (iv) An article in the Northern Daily Leader of 31 August 2002. 4 The imputations the subject of the Application presently under consideration were said to arise from the second and fourth of these publications and were pleaded in the following terms (I adopt the numbering in the questions submitted to the jury):- The Poster 3(a) That the plaintiff was reasonably suspected by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of using his monopoly of pharmacies in Moree of take unfair advantage of consumers by charging them inflated prices for prescription drugs.