Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 400

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 400 Decision date: 08 April 2014 Before: McCallum J Decision: Defences of honest opinion of a commentator and comment of a stranger to be struck out unless the defendants provide particulars within 14 days identifying the persons whose honest opinion or comment is relied upon; application to have defence of fair report struck out refused Catchwords: DEFAMATION - defences - whether statutory defence of honest opinion of a commentator and common law defence of comment of a stranger liable to be struck out - where newspaper refusing to provide particulars identifying the commentator - application of the newspaper rule Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 Defamation Act 1974 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco [1988] HCA 54; (1988) 165 CLR 346 Liu v The Age Company Ltd [2012] NSWSC 12 McGuinness v Attorney General (Vic) (1940) 63 CLR 73 Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317 The Age v Liu [2013] NSWCA 26 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Edmund Thomas Gregory Bateman (Plaintiff) Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (First Defendant) Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/203163 Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT 1HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation and injurious falsehood arising out of the publication of a number of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald in October 2010. The only plaintiff in the defamation action is Dr Edmund Bateman. Dr Bateman is described in the articles as "Australia's richest doctor" and is credited with having pioneered the corporatisation of general medical practice in this country. The articles discuss the advent of large, seven-day medical centres and report allegations complaining of Dr Bateman's treatment of general practitioners engaged to work in such centres, his frequent and aggressive resort to litigation in the case of dispute and the adverse impact of the income-driven practices of such centres on the quality of the medical care they provide. 2There are four matters complained of in the proceedings. The first is an article published in the print edition of the paper on 7 October 2010. The second is a digital version of that article in substantially the same terms. The third matter complained of is a collection of three articles published in the print edition of the paper the following day, on 8 October 2010. The fourth is the digital version of the third, again in what appears to be substantially the same terms. 3Dr Bateman has pleaded a large number of defamatory imputations allegedly conveyed by those articles. 4The defendants have pleaded defences of justification, contextual truth, honest opinion, comment and fair report (see amended defence filed 16 August 2013). Dr Bateman objects to parts of the amended defence and has applied to have those parts struck out pursuant to rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. 5The hearing of the application exceeded the parties' estimate and did not conclude within the time available. This judgment determines objections to the pleading of the defences of honest opinion, comment and fair report. It remains to determine the plaintiff's objections to the defendants' reliance upon "Hore-Lacy" meanings as an aspect of the defence of justification and objections to the defence of contextual truth (as to which the proceedings are listed for further argument).