Treasurer Joe Hockey wins $200,000 damages in defamation action against Fairfax Media
The judge ruled the phrase ‘Treasurer for sale’ as a headline was acceptable in context with the article, but was defamatory on a poster and in tweets
Joe Hockey has won his defamation action against publisher Fairfax Media, with the court awarding $200,000 in damages.
Justice Richard White in the Federal Court today found Fairfax had defamed the Federal treasurer through a poster published by The Sydney Morning Herald and two tweets by The Age.
Hockey was awarded $120,000 for the poster, headed “Treasurer for sale”, and $80,000 for two tweets sent by The Age. The court has dismissed claims relating to the articles.
A better person could not be more deserving of $200k. After all the good this man has done for all fair car driving Australians, and with such grace and tact. Hopefully he can now afford to buy his own place and stop roughing it in his Wife’s spare bedroom.
Bahaha! The lefty lynch mob scores an own-goal. Hilarious!
Can they sell tickets to the money handover?
Priceless.
interesting timing of this judgement, after last night’s 4 Corners report into Mafia influence in the Liberal Party
he can buy another house! no wait….
@Mike
The only part of the headline the average punter will be reading is “Hockey wins $200k”.
You were saying about own goal? Not sure that helps his cigar smoking image.
This looks like a win for Fairfax overall. Reputationally, they actually come out stronger, particularly with the articles having found to be well researched and accurate — something we wouldn’t have seen if the case had been against the Daily Tele. It probably doesn’t hurt that Hockey is not the most popular politician in the country right now.
not sure about that The Facts.
I can’t see how a newspaper can be seen to have published well researched and accurate articles that are also judged to be defamatory
That’s the point Nick Williams, the articles weren’t judged to be defamatory. Only the poster and two tweets because they didn’t have the context of the article
@nick williams – you are incorrect – the articles were not judged to be defamatory. The posters and tweets, which promoted the exact same headline as published in the newspaper, were judged to be defamatory, which makes the ruling a little strange. I would expect an appeal.
It was the headlines and the tweets IN ISOLATION that were ruled defamatory. The judge ruled that when read in conjunction with the story, they weren’t. . The other big factor in this case was that the judge found that the headline was driven by malice on the part of the editor/fairfax — thanks largely to internal emails from the editor which, among other things, referenced the editor’s wish to “crucify” Hockey. Not a good look on his (the editor’s) part.and a rookie error of judgement.
$200,000?! that’s the salary of almost twenty paid interns!
That would wipe out Fairfax’s entire editorial team.
@hank, it’s actually the salary of an infinite number of interns, i’m not sure any media organisations pay them anymore…
more apt would be “$200,000?! that’s the price of buying back 250,000 shares!”
Eddie Obeid won a defamation cse against Fairfax too and look where he ended up
A win for Hockey? He was chasing one million. There are yet costs to be awarded.
Great analysis from Richard Ackland. Fairfax may be entitled to costs order as a result of Hockey losing majority of the case… leaving him with potentially very little. Ackland also highlights how wrong the News Corp papers got it today in rejoicing Hockey’s ‘major win’. I think we all expected this behaviour from them though, and deep down they know it was nothing of the sort http://www.theguardian.com/com.....mation-win
Just wiped out their 2015 profit in one hit