Face of Nation : Justice Michael Wigney on Wednesday dismissed the application for a permanent injunction to restrain Nationwide from republishing the meanings found to be conveyed in the defamatory material.Actor Geoffrey Rush, who was awarded $2.9 million for being defamed by Nationwide News, has lost his bid to ban the newspaper publisher from repeating the substance of its allegations.
The Federal Court judge in April found the Daily Telegraph’s publisher and journalist Jonathon Moran were reckless regarding the truth when they reported Rush had been accused of inappropriate behaviour during a Sydney theatre production of King Lear.
The judge said a poster and two articles contained several defamatory meanings – including that Rush was a pervert and a sexual predator – but the publisher hadn’t proved they were true. In May, Rush was awarded $2.9 million for damages plus interest and to account for his past and future economic loss.
In arguing for the injunction, the actor’s lawyers contended there was a serious risk that, unless restrained, Nationwide would continue to publish the imputations.
They submitted that Nationwide had displayed “irrationality, a lack of objectivity and defiance and disrespect” concerning Justice Wigney’s April liability judgment and the findings made against it. But Nationwide disputed there was any threat or risk of republication.
It submitted the proposed injunction was a “blunt instrument” which would unfairly and unnecessarily curtail its right to report on or express opinions about the judge’s findings and its upcoming appeal. Rush’s lawyers referred to four articles published after the judge found he had been defamed.
They included a report including a large photo of Rush’s former co-star Eryn Jean Norvill, who alleged he sexually harassed her, with the words: “I told the truth. I knew what happened. I was there”. Another article was an opinion piece saying: “Justice Wigney has completely missed the point”.
But the judge said “whatever one may think of the quality and objectivity of the journalism, analysis and commentary” in the articles, they did not provide a basis upon which to infer that unless restrained, Nationwide will continue to publish the defamatory imputations.
The articles were either reports of the judgment or comprised comment or opinion about it – they did not simply repeat or republish the defamatory imputations, he said.
“Nationwide, like any other person, has a right within limits, to criticise and express disagreement with the liability judgment,” the judge said. “There is at least a risk that the inunction sought by Mr Rush might effectively impinge on or restrict that right.”
