Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd PDF

Description

Documentation tool Q1 - Innuendo What was the legal innuendo on which Cornes relied to establish a defamatory meaning? Why do you think that the imputation of a sexual relationship would not have been sufficient on its own to establish defamation? Was the Court satisfied that there were viewers who would possess the extrinsic information needed to draw this legal innuendo? - legal innuendo: defamatory meaning conveyed only to someone with extrinsic info - gist of the plaintiff’s action is damage to reputation even if that damage be confined to a small section of the public with that esoteric knowledge - adultress - considering the societal views presently, sexual relo would not lower a person's reputation - Only if every person, or for all practical purposes every viewer knew the facts, extraneous to the broadcast, denied it any defamatory meaning could it be said that the plaintiff’s reputation was not damaged - Proof only that a substantial number of people had that knowledge leaves open the possibility that the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged amongst that section of the community who did not know of Molloy’s propensity

Q2 - The 'single meaning' rule What are the origins of the single meaning rule? Why is it important as a matter of policy to identify one single meaning of the words that would be drawn by the ordinary reasonable person? - Ajinomoto Sweetners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd - to protect freedom of expression on the one hand, and the right to reputation on the other hand, striking a balance between the two According to Justice Blue, does the single meaning rule prevent a plaintiff from pleading multiple imputations? What is the interaction between this rule and a legal innuendo?

- plaintiff is entitled to allege and prove ‘a duality of meanings and impressions, not necessarily exclusive of one another’ - co-existing with the single meaning rule

Q3 - Background knowledge What background knowledge could be attributed to the viewers of the program?   Could this include knowledge about previous episodes of the program or the comedic reputations of the panellists prior to the subject broadcast? - does not include esoteric information about previous episodes of Before the Game or the comedic reputation of the comedians

Q4 - The entirety of the publication Was the ordinary reasonable viewer expected to watch the whole show? If so, what conclusions would they draw about the usual nature of Molloy’s contributions? - If there were no comedic elements in the episode itself it could hardly be a defence that the ordinary viewer would have understood Molloy’s comments as a joke because of his or her pre-existing knowledge that Molloy was a comedian - ORP would have understood from watching the 28 June episode that Molloy’s contribution was generally comedic

Q5 - The imputation Why did the court consider that the ordinary reasonable viewer would interpret the words seriously, even though they were intended as a joke? What did Chief Justice Kourakis personally understand the words to mean? Why then did he believe that the ordinary reasonable viewer would understand them in a different way? - 'and apparently you slept with her too’ meaning that Dew and Cornes had sexual relo, is not a strained, forced or unreasonable construction of the uttered words - ORP would have general knowledge of, and reasonably strong interest in, the personal affairs of both footballers and other celebrities; would have keen ear for Dew's personal life

- comedy and gossip are not mutually exclusive in the context of broadcasts of this kind - timing is critical in comdedy - Molloy's joke fell flat

Q6 - The context of the publication What was the relevance of the fact that the show was not purely a comedy show, such as a comedy sketch show, but also sought to convey information to viewers about serious topics? - program had both a humorous and informative character. - contained a large measure of gossip in the sense of light talk and information

Q7 - Bane and antidote Why were the swift denials by the other panellists ineffective as an ‘antidote’ to the defamatory ‘bane’? ‘If it was clear that Mr Molloy’s words were not to be taken seriously or were merely teasing, no one would have attempted to deny them or to defuse the explosive situation that resulted’...