Landmark Defamation Case: Australian TV Network Cleared in Blogger's Lawsuit

Issue: The issue in this case is whether the defendant, Nine Network, is liable for defamation arising from comments made on its Facebook page about the plaintiff, Osman Faruqi, and if the plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time to bring their claim and whether the defendant’s defences are tenable.

Rule: The rules that apply in this case are the defamation law, particularly the provisions of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).

The main section of legislation considered in this defamation matter is section 23C of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), which deals with the extension of limitation periods in defamation proceedings. Additionally, section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) was also discussed, which sets out the defences available in defamation proceedings, such as the defences of truth, honest opinion and privilege.

Application: The plaintiff in this case filed a claim against the defendant, alleging that comments on the defendant’s Facebook page were defamatory towards him. The defendant denied that the comments were defamatory and raised defences of contextual truth, honest opinion, and qualified privilege.

Regarding the limitation issue, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to bring their claims with respect to the first broadcast, downloads of the segment, and comments before February 18, 2021. The plaintiff was also granted an extension of time to bring their claims with respect to downloads of the segment and comments after July 2021, insofar as the comments were first posted prior to February 18, 2021. The court held that the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time until February 22, 2022, in respect of the publications referred to above.

In relation to the strike-out application, the court found that the defences advanced by the defendants are tenable, and accordingly, the strike-out application was dismissed. The court allowed the defendants to file and serve their proposed amended defence.

Conclusion: The court found that the defendant was not liable for defamation arising from comments made on its Facebook page. The court also granted an extension of time to the plaintiff to bring their claims and held that the defendant’s defences were tenable.

Overall, the court applied the relevant law to the facts of the case to determine the outcome. The plaintiff was able to receive an extension of time, and the defendant was able to rely on their defences.

Relevant Cases Considered:

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Defteros v Google LLC [2021] VSCA 48
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104