Rezaiee v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2014] NSWSC 1120

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rezaiee v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2014] NSWSC 1120 Hearing dates: 11 August 2014 Decision date: 11 August 2014 Before: McCallum J Decision: Each party to answer interrogatories, including supplementary answers that have been agreed between the parties, in accordance with these reasons within 28 days; plaintiff to pay half of the defendant's costs of the plaintiff's motion and argument today. Catchwords: DEFAMATION - interrogatories - no question of principle. Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Mohammad Medhi Rezaiee (plaintiff) Australian Broadcasting Corporation (defendant) Representation: Counsel: L Goodchild (plaintiff) ATS Dawson, Ms A Rao (defendant) Solicitors: Jackson Lalic Lawyers (plaintiff) ABC - Legal (defendant) File Number(s): 2012/277583 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation arising out of the broadcast on the ABC television channel of a Four Corners program. The plaintiff complains, broadly, that the broadcast accused him of being a people smuggler or a person who acts as an agent for people smugglers. 2The proceedings are before the Court today for the determination of the plaintiff's application to administer interrogatories to the defendant and the defendant's application pressing for answers to some of the interrogatories administered by it to the plaintiff. I deal first with the plaintiff's application to administer interrogatories. 3The application proceeded by reference to a draft form of interrogatories attached to the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 22 July 2014. The defendant notes that the application requires an extension of time within which to administer any interrogatories, the plaintiff having allowed a previous timetable to pass. However, that was not the basis on which the present application was ultimately opposed and in my view an extension of time should be allowed, subject to the interrogatories proposed to be administered being necessary. 4The defendant agrees to answer interrogatories 1 to 4, 6, 8, 20 and 27 to 29. All of the remaining interrogatories are disputed. 5Interrogatory 5 asks the defendant to identify any broadcasts of the first matter complained of, being the Four Corners program, other than those complained of in the statement of claim. Mr Dawson, who appears for the ABC, noted that, in effect, the interrogatory seeks an identification of other publications which would constitute a separate cause of action in circumstances where none has been pleaded. I accept that submission and would not allow that interrogatory. 6Interrogatory 7 seeks identification of the person who placed the matters complained of on the ABC's website and the person who wrote the first and second matters complained of. I do not see any relevance of those matters to the issues raised on the pleadings. I note that there is one matter as to which I have omitted to seek assistance from counsel, I will return to that issue. 7Interrogatories 9 to 19 are in the form usually seen in a case where there is a defence of qualified privilege. In my view they are directed only to the issues raised by that defence. No defence has been pleaded and accordingly I would not allow those interrogatories. In my view they do not go to any view raised on the pleadings. 8Interrogatory 21 asks whether, for the purpose of broadcasting the matters complained of, the defendant made use of any documents and, if so, seeks the identification of any such documents and a copy. Mr Dawson submits that the interrogatory is a request for discovery in disguise. It seems to me that the identification of any documents used by the defendant in the preparation or broadcast of the matter complained of ought to have been dealt with or addressed in the categories for discovery, and I can see no relevance of the interrogatory on that basis. That interrogatory is rejected. 9Interrogatories 22 to 26 are in the form that usually appears in a case where, again, a qualified privilege defence is pleaded. The only issue which I can see those questions going to is the question of malice, which is not an issue in these proceedings. Those questions must be rejected. 10Interrogatories 30 and 31 seek the name and address and contact numbers of two named persons. Ms Goodchild, who appears for the plaintiff, accepted Mr Dawson's contention that the contact details of those two people are not relevant to any issue in the proceedings and, as I understand the position, those interrogatories were not pressed. In case that is wrong, I see no relevance of those questions and they will not be allowed. 11I turn to the defendant's application pressing for answers to some interrogatories which the plaintiff refused to answer. Before dealing with the specific points taken by Mr Dawson on behalf of the ABC, it is necessary to explain that the substance of the matter complained of is to assert that the plaintiff was a person involved in collecting money on behalf of people smugglers for the purpose of bringing people to Australia by boat in 2010. 12In a published statement made following the broadcast of the Four Corners programme, the plaintiff complained that the ABC had denied him natural justice in broadcasting those allegations without hearing his side of the story. He asserted, in effect, that the circumstances in which he collected money on behalf of a person and transmitted that money to someone else were innocent, as he believed he was transferring money at the request of his brother on behalf of someone who had a connection with a carpet shop. In the context of making those remarks, the plaintiff explained that comments that had been attributed to him during a secretly-recorded conversation with an Iraqi refugee could be explained by the plaintiff's own experience on a boat in 2000. 13In that context, the defendant's interrogatories include a series of questions directed to the circumstances in which the plaintiff came to Australia. The line of questions begins with a question which I would accept, as submitted by Ms Goodchild, is too remote to the issue identified. That is interrogatory 38, which asks the plaintiff the circumstances in which he came to Australia, including the countries in which he was raised before he commenced his travel to Australia. I would reject that question as being too remote and not necessary for the resolution of the issues in the proceedings. 14Interrogatory 41, which asks the identifying details of the boat in question, and names of other passengers, is in part in the same category. I would direct the plaintiff to answer part (a) of interrogatory 41 but not part (b). 15Interrogatories 43 to 46 seek further detail of the plaintiff's travel to Australia, how it was organised, whether his brother was involved and any other person who was involved, whether the plaintiff had any information that people smugglers were involved and what the information was, and any dealings the plaintiff has subsequently had with any such person. Those questions seemed to me to be directly relevant to the issue identified by Mr Dawson which is, in my view, a potential issue in these proceedings, namely, the reliability or credibility of the plaintiff's contention stated publicly that he had no reason to connect the collection of money from the person associated with the carpet shop with people smuggling. 16If the circumstances of the plaintiff's own travel to Australia entailed involvement with the people smuggling trade, then the assertion of innocent collection of money some ten years later can be tested by reference to those circumstances. Accordingly, I consider that the plaintiff should answer questions 43 to 46. 17I direct the parties within three days to approach the list clerk with a view to obtaining a hearing date with an estimate of two to three weeks. I direct each party to answer interrogatories, including supplementary answers that have been agreed between the parties, in accordance with the reasons I have just given within 28 days. I direct the parties to re-list the proceedings before me by contacting my Associate in the event that either party seeks to adduce expert evidence at the hearing with a view to seeking directions as to expert evidence.