DENT v MACQUARIE RADIO NETWORK PTY LTD [2004] NSWSC 95

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : DENT v MACQUARIE RADIO NETWORK PTY LTD [2004] NSWSC 95 HEARING DATE(S) : 31 October 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Levine J DECISION : 1. The plaintiff is granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim in accordance with these reasons and is to do so within 14 days.; 2. Each party is to pay his and its own costs.; 3. I place the matter in the Registrar's 9am Directions List on Friday 12 March 2004.; 4. Exhibit 1 (the 3 audio tapes) is to be returned to the defendant.

CATCHWORDS : Imputations - capacity - difference in substance ARTHUR DENT (Plaintiff)

PARTIES : v

MACQUARIE RADIO NETWORK PTY LTD (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20018 OF 2003 C Evatt (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : B Connell (Defendant) Carters (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Defendant)

[2004] NSWSC 95 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2004

20018 OF 2003

ARTHUR DENT (Plaintiff)

v

MACQUARIE RADIO NETWORK PTY LTD (Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations – capacity – difference in substance) 1 This is a matter, not atypical, where a plaintiff is confronted by three quite disparaging publications and the plaintiff's lawyers have been confronted by the difficulty of pleading causes of action arising from them. 2 The plaintiff sues in relation to three broadcasts at 9.10am, 9.16am and 9.35am on 12 June 2002 on Radio Station 2GB. 3 The texts of the broadcast material are appended hereto. 4 The radio programmes were broadcast by Ray Hadley in a talkback format. 5 In relation to the first matter complained of the plaintiff seeks to plead in a further amended statement of claim the following imputations: 3(a)(i) The Plaintiff is a malingerer. (ii) The Plaintiff is reasonably suspected by Ray Hadley of being a malingerer. (b)(i) The Plaintiff is a cheat. (ii) The Plaintiff is reasonably suspected by Ray Hadley of being a cheat. (c) The Plaintiff fraudulently obtained a disability pension to which he was not entitled because he was able to make 10,000 parachute jumps. (d) The Plaintiff received a disability pension even though he was well enough to work. (e)(i) The plaintiff gave false evidence to the Court that he was able to make 10,000 parachute jumps when he was disabled and in receipt of a disability pension. (ii) The Plaintiff was reasonably suspected by Ray Hadley of giving false evidence to the Court that he was able to make 10,000 parachute jumps when he was disabled and in receipt of a disability pension. (f) The made a mockery of the Court by bringing a ridiculous liability claim.