Rodgers v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311 Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 245 Raafbye Corporation Pty Ltd and Ors v Westpac Banking Corporation (Levine J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported, 21 October 1994) CASES CITED: Robertson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 473 Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 312 Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425 Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (Hunt J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported, 20 February 1980) Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58

Stewart Clifford Rodgers PARTIES: Davidson Cameron Pty Ltd Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd Australian News Channel Pty Ltd

COUNSEL: Plaintiffs: T Blackburn SC / R Hardcastle Defendants: B R McClintock SC / M Richardson

SOLICITORS: Plaintiffs: Brophy Bridge & Mirow Lawyers Defendants: Johnson Winter Slattery Lawyers

1. The plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation and injurious falsehood arising out of a series of publications. This judgment concerns only the challenges to certain imputations pleaded by the first plaintiff.

2. I note that the first plaintiff has by agreement amended the reference to replace "stock and station business" in his imputations with the words "real estate business".

3. The first matter complained of was a promotion for the program A Current Affair. It was published four times (on 20, 21, 22 and 23 October 2006). The first plaintiff pleads that the matter complained of gave raise to the following imputations: "6. The first plaintiff with respect to the sale depicted in the first matter complained of - (a) was greedy in carrying on his real estate business; (b) treated clients of his real estate business unfairly; (c) demanded without justification a commission for a sale which he had not made; (d) behaved disreputably in his conduct as a real estate agent; (e) was dishonest."

4. The second matter complained of was a second promotion for A Current Affair which was published on 1 November 2006. The first plaintiff pleads that this give rise to the following imputations: "11. The first plaintiff with respect to the sale depicted in the second matter complained of - (a) was greedy in carrying on his real estate business; (b) treated clients of his real estate business unfairly; (c) demanded without justification a commission for a sale which he had not made; (d) behaved disreputably in his conduct as a real estate agent; (e) was dishonest in sending a bill for work he had never done; (f) was incompetent in his failure to sell the property within four months."

5. The third matter complained of was the A Current Affair program for which the previous publications were promotions. This program was put to air on 2 November 2006. The first plaintiff pleads that this program gives rise to the following imputations: "16. The first plaintiff with respect to the sale depicted in the third matter complained of - (a) was greedy in carrying on his real estate business; (b) treated clients of his real estate business unfairly; (c) demanded without justification a commission for a sale which he had not made; (d) behaved disreputably in his conduct as a real estate agent; (e) was dishonest in sending a bill for work he had never done; (f) acted unprofessionally in his conduct relating to the property."

6. The text for each of the matters complained of is set out in a schedule to this judgment.

The defendant challenges imputations 6(b), 6(d) and 6(e).

The defendant makes the global objection to all three imputations that there are only seventeen words in the first matter complained of and that to plead five imputations is excessive. However, if each of the imputations is capable of arising, the shortness (all for that matter the length) of the matter complained of is irrelevant.

I now deal with each imputation in turn. An objection has been taken to the form of the imputation on the basis that "fair" is ambiguous: Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425. I will deal first with the objection to capacity.

Simpson J considered an imputation of "unfair" conduct in Robertson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 473. The plaintiff pleaded imputations in several publications to the effect that the matter complained of conveyed an imputation that the plaintiff had an unfair policy of sex discrimination against women workers. Simpson J held that the imputation was capable of being conveyed in one publication but not another. The imputation in that case was a clear one of conduct that was not fair in that it was bias, partial or marked by deceptive dishonest practices, this meaning being the definition of "unfair" in the Macquarie Concise Dictionary.

Conduct that is unfair refers to conduct that is unjust, or in some way deprive a person of something to which they would otherwise be entitled. Discrimination on the basis of sex is a good example of such conduct. The question is whether or not the imputation is capable of arising from the publication.

In the first matter complained of, all that we are told is that the plaintiff is a greedy real estate agent who still wanted his commission although he did not sell the home of the two vendors who were shown in the promotional guide. The test for whether or not an imputation is conveyed under the 2005 Act, as opposed to the Defamation Act 1974, may well be a matter about which judges should exercise caution, but on any test, in the absence of some specific conduct which is identifiably "unfair" in the dictionary meanings identified above, I cannot see that imputation of unfairness can even pass the comparatively low bar of a capacity argument.

The other objection taken to the word "unfair" was its alleged lack of precision. No objection was taken in Robertson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd to the use of the word "unfair". I note, in Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58 at 73 Hunt J warned the plaintiff of the need to demonstrate, in relation to a particular asserting that there had been publication of unfair and damaging material that it would be necessary to "identify with some precision the nature of the unfairness alleged" (at 73G) although his Honour declined to strike out a particular of aggravated damages framed in a similar fashion at 79.

If there was conduct capable of conveying an imputation of unfairness, an objection of absence of precision would have little merit. However, since it is not clear in the first matter complained of what the unfair treatment actually was because there is nothing in the matter complained of which can be described as unfair treatment. I have dealt with this basis for the objection in relation to the other publications where conduct of an unfair nature is referring to specific conduct by the first plaintiff.

The defendant also objects to the imputation of behaving "disreputably" in imputation 6(d). It is asserted that nothing in the matter complained of points to disreputable conduct.

However, the format of the matter complained of is a dramatic promotion of two exposés. The first shows a man called "Dazza from Getaway", a fake TV presenter wining and dining and free-loading across Australia who had "tricked everyone until now". We then see the journalist who prepared the story saying, somewhat sarcastically, "I'm a real television reporter". The text of the matter complained of does not emphasis the word "real", but the matter complained of does. The next image on the screen is a picture of the first plaintiff in the premises of the second plaintiff and we hear the words "Plus - the greedy real estate agent". The exaggerated and slow way in which the word "Plus" is said may tend, in the mind of an ordinary reasonable reader, given the evanescence of television images, to tar the plaintiffs with the same brush as the disreputable man who posed as a fake television journalist for the purpose of tricking people. The context is that the plaintiffs, as well as "Dazza from Getaway", will all have their misconduct exposed by A Current Affair. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the manner in which the story is presented is capable of conveying an imputation that the plaintiff has behaved disreputably.

The objection is raised for this imputation does not differ in substance from imputation 6(c). In Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (Hunt J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported, 20 February 1980) Hunt J suggested that the test for whether imputations differ in substance depends upon the consideration of what may be proved by way of justification. However, where an imputation is of an act ("the plaintiff stole two hens") and a condition ("the plaintiff is a thief"), each of these imputations may be pleaded, as Hunt J noted. In addition, in Saint v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 312 at [11] - [12] Kirby J pointed out that the same evidence might prove the truth of each imputation and yet those imputations may differ in substance. The plaintiff also draws my attention to Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311 at [12] - [13]; Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 245 at [44] - [47] on this issue.

The disreputable conduct of the plaintiff essentially arises from his being bracketed with "Dazza from Getaway" in what the plaintiff calls a "rogues gallery". The ordinary reasonable listener, hearing these words, knows that these words are a taste of something that is to come. This is a very good example of the kinda of loose thinking that Hunt CJ at CL was referring to in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164F. A wide degree of latitude needs to be given to the capacity of the matter complained of to convey particular imputations where the words published are loose and convey the kind of hints that a trailer for a program is designed to give to the audience.

The next objection taken by the defendant is to imputation 6(e). It is asserted that the imputation is not capable of arising, although a person who has not sold the home of a client but still wants a commission, particularly in circumstances where this person is about to be exposed, is information which could ground an imputation of dishonesty. The specific objection is that the dishonesty relied upon in imputation 6(e) and 6(c) is that they do not differ in substance and that for the reasons set out in Raafbye Corporation Pty Ltd and Ors v Westpac Banking Corporation (Levine J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported, 21 October 1994) the imputations of disreputable and dishonest conduct means the same thing and should be struck out.

However, as the submissions for the plaintiff point out of paragraph 6(e), the meaning for this imputation is not derived simply from the portion of the matter complained of which identifies the plaintiff as having demanded without justification a commission for sale which he had not made but also from the entirety of the promotional structure of the matter complained of. This is a familiar exposé by A Current Affair of scoundrels engaging in sharp practices. The plaintiff is one of two rogues who are about to be exposed. In addition, I note that an imputation that the plaintiff is dishonest is a condition where as an imputation that the plaintiff demanded without justification a commission for a sale to which he had not made is an act, and for this reason as well the imputations are capable of differing in substance. However, the principal reason that they differ in substance is because of the generalised smear of sharp practices that the whole of the matter complained of conveys. It is redolent within innuendo, no doubt to encourage the viewer to watch the program.

Accordingly while I strike out imputation 6(b); the defendant's objections to imputation 6(d) and 6(e) are rejected.

The defendant challenges imputations 11(b), 11(d), 11(e) and 11(f).

The second matter complained of is longer, in that it is eighteen sentences. It recites that the real estate agent asked for commission even though after four months he had been unable to sell a couple's home. They took the matter into their own hands and sold it themselves and now the agent is demanding a slice of the sale. They had received a bill in the mail for work that had not been carried out and the real estate agent was taking them to court for not paying the commission. A solicitor is shown saying "Once you sign those agreements with the agents they've got you" and "My advice to all my clients is don't sign anything initially".

The objection to the imputation of unfairness (11(b)) carries much less force in relation to this publication. The difference between this publication and the first matter complained of is that conduct can be identified which could be classed as unfair, namely that the vendors were persuaded to signed an agreement which, unknown to them, was not in their interests and as a result, could be required to pay the plaintiffs for work they had not done. It is this conduct, not the circumstances in which the plaintiff is demanding a commission for a home he had not sold, that may, to the ordinary reasonable reader, constitute unfair treatment.

The defendant complains that the conduct imputed to the plaintiff, namely getting the vendors to sign an agreement and then going to court to enforce his rights, is perfectly legal. That, however, is irrelevant for the reasons explained by Simpson J in Robertson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd at [42] and [43]. The ordinary reasonable reader does not read or listen to the matter complained of in this careful way. The ordinary reasonable listener would hear a solicitor warning his clients not to sign these agreements at all. The inference the ordinary reasonable reader would be capable of drawing would be these agreements are in some unspecified way unfair or otherwise against the interest of the people who are induced to sign them.

I also reject the objection that the word "unfair" shows an absence of precision. The particularisation of a plea of justification, to meet this imputation would be to particularise activities including the activities referred to in paragraph 25 above.

The defendant next objects to imputation 11(d), and again draws my attention to Raafbye Corporation Pty Ltd and Ors v Westpac Banking Corporation. However, some caution should be exercised when comparing the facts of this decision to the matter complained of. Short though the matter complained of may be, the matters complained of in Raafbye were even shorter, in that each publication consisted of the words "refers to drawer" on five consecutively dated cheques. The imputations that were pleaded were that the plaintiff conduct his business in a disreputable manner and that the plaintiff conduct his business in a dishonest manner. Levine J invited the plaintiffs to elect as to which of these it wish to plead.

That is not the case here. Again, the imputation of disreputable conduct arises firstly from the manner of presentation, secondly from the conduct of the plaintiffs not only asking for commission to which they were not entitled, but signing the vendors up to an agreement from which, one might infer, they were entitled to do these sort of things. The listener is told that not all real estate agents are like this, and Tracy Grimshaw goes on to say that the program will tell the ordinary reasonable listener "How to find a real estate agent who does what you want", the inference being that there are real estate agents who behave in a more responsible or reputable fashion.

I similarly reject the argument that the imputation does not differ in substance.

The objections to imputation 11(e) overlooks the reference in the matter complained of to the plaintiff sending a bill for "work that they hadn't even carried out". It is asserted that the matter complained of makes it clear to the ordinary reasonable viewer that the plaintiffs' demand for money is pursuant to a binding legal enforceable agreement. However, for the reasons explained by Simpson J in Robertson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd at [42] and [43] and by Hunt J in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden at 173, this is not how the ordinary reasonable listener views a television program.

The defendant also submits that an imputation that the plaintiff demanded without justification a commission for a sale to which he had not made and was dishonest in sending a bill for work he had never done do not differ in substance. The imputation in my view is capable of arising. I do not have trouble seeing the difference between demanding without justification a commission for a sale to which he had not made and dishonesty in sending a bill for work he had never done. The plaintiff asks the rhetorical question of what would happen if the words "engage in sharp practice" replace the words "was dishonest". An imputation about engaging in sharp practices so as to send bills for work they had not done would however need to be carefully drafted so as not to be too similar to imputation 11(b). Sending a bill without justification is a lesser imputation than dishonesty, and in this respect differs in substance. It may be desirable to plead the lesser imputation as a fall back, but this is a matter that can be dealt with at the trial since this is a 2005 Act publication and the imputation is not the cause of action. No application was made to me by the defendant for such an order.

The defendant pressed objections to imputation 11(f) very faintly. The allegation that the real estate agent could not sell the vendor's home in four months but that they were able to do so without difficulty is capable of giving rise to such an imputation. The ordinary reasonable listener would draw upon his worldly knowledge and commonsense in this regard.

The defendant challenges imputations 16(b), 16(d) and 16(f).

The first objection is to imputation 16(b) and I arrive at a different conclusion in relation to capacity because this publication is much longer, and it contains a number of examples of conduct which could be described as being unfair. The first is the statement that "Small people get walked on all the time", followed by the statement that the vendors were "taken for a ride by their real estate agent", when we hear that they signed an agreement which "If you read [it] carefully, no one would sign" (at line 41). We go on to hear that the plaintiff's solicitors defend the reputation of the real estate company and maintained that Mr Rodgers acted "fairly". Imputation 16(b) is an imputation that I have little difficulty finding to be able to be conveyed.

Similarly, the disreputable behaviour is not one but a whole series of actions by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's written submissions particularly draw to my attention such statements as "money for nothing", "we just couldn't believe it", "small people get walked on all the time", "taken for a ride", "do some homework on the person who is selling your biggest asset", I also not that Mr Jenman, the man who was described as someone who "keeps agents honest" to says that no one would sign these agreements if they had been explained and that the agents had "got you" with this clause.

There are a number of references in the matter complained of which, in my view, enable this imputation to survive a capacity argument. The plaintiff's conduct is not simply portrayed as being dishonest, but he is portrayed as being worthy of criticism by his conduct as a real estate agent generally, which is portrayed as being behaviour of someone who is not a reputable agent, hence the need to "do your homework" about such agents.

The objection to imputation 16(e) is that there is no reference in the matter complained of to the sending of an invoice for work that had never been done. However, line 23 refers to the vendors having "copped" an invoice from the plaintiff's company demanding "their slice of the deal, the commission".

It is submitted that the charging of commission for a house that was not sold does not give rise to the concept of dishonesty. It may be seen as a sharp conduct but not as dishonesty.

I accept the submissions of the defendant that this is a jury submission. The matter complained of is a program about exposing a rogue who is claiming for work that he has not done. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether or not this is capable of imputing dishonesty.

This brings me to the problem of whether this conduct, namely sending of a bill for work that was never done, differs in substance from imputation 16(c) and I make the same findings as I did in relation to imputation 11(e). Again, it may be preferable to consider pleading the lesser as a fall back to the stronger imputation, but this is a matter that can be resolved at the trial, since imputations are no longer the cause of action.

In the course of argument, the defendant sought leave to amend the imputations pleaded as arising from the third matter complained of to plead an imputation of incompetence. The matter was stood over to 31 August 2007 when the defendant advised that there was no objection to the following imputation being added to the imputations as arising from the third matter complained of:

"16(g) was incompetent in his failure to sell the property within four months".

I accordingly grant leave to amend to plead this imputation.

This is a well-drafted statement of claim. The objections taken to the pleadings come close to the nitpicking variety and the defendant has enjoyed only one success. Accordingly, it is in my view appropriate that the defendant pay the plaintiff's cost of this application.

1. Grant leave to the first plaintiff to amend the statement of claim by adding the following imputation: "16(g) was incompetent in his failure to sell the property within four months".
2. Strike out imputation 6(b).
3. All imputations (except 6(b)) pleaded in paragraphs 6, 11 and 16 are to go to the jury.
4. Defendant pay plaintiff's costs.

IMAGES SPEAKER AND WORDS Man ("Dazza") in kitchen Man: 1. I'm Dazza from Getaway.

Man dining, arriving at hotel Voice: 2. The fake TV presenter wining and dining and free-loading across Australia.

Woman: 3. I have never seen this fellow before. Woman to camera Voice: 4. He tricked everyone until now. Journalist: Journalist speaking to man (Dazza) 5. I'm a real television reporter.

Voice: (The first matter complained of starts here) 6. Plus - the greedy real estate agent. Images of first plaintiff in premises of second plaintiff Voice: 7. He didn't sell their home. Two vendors sitting in the open Voice: 8. But he still wants his commission. Images of first plaintiff

IMAGES SPEAKER AND WORDS Journalist to camera (Grimshaw)

Grimshaw: 1. But still to come. Images of first plaintiff 2. The real estate agent demanding thousands in commission from a couple even though he didn't sell their home. Mrs McGinniskin: 3. We couldn't believe it. 4. We were just dumbfounded. 5. We didn't know they were entitled to anything.

Journalist to camera (Grimshaw) Grimshaw: 6. They thought their great Australian dream was in good hands, but four months later their agent still hadn't sold their property. 7. So they decided to take matters into their own hands and sell it themselves. 8. Now this agent is demanding a slice of the sale.

Mr McGinniskin: 9. You receive a bill in the mail for work that they hadn't even carried out. Simon Bouda: 10. You're taking them to court now for not paying their commission.

Solicitor: 11. Once you sign those agreements with the agents they've got you. Mr McGinniskin sitting at property First plaintiff: 12. Leave, just leave. Solicitor: 13. My advice to all my clients is don't sign anything initially. Image of Simon Bouda (Reporter) talking to first plaintiff in premises of second plaintiff First plaintiff: Solicitor to camera 14. Leave. Simon Bouda: 15. Don't push me. Grimshaw: Images of first plaintiff pushing Simon Bouda in premises of second plaintiff 16. How to find a real estate agent who does what you want. Solicitor to camera 17. What every buyer and seller needs to know. 18. That's tomorrow night.

Images of first plaintiff pushing Simon Bouda in premises of second plaintiff

IMAGES SPEAKER AND WORDS Journalist to camera (Grimshaw)

Image of first plaintiff pushing Simon Bouda in premises of second plaintiff

Image of first plaintiff pushing Simon Bouda in premises of second plaintiff

Grimshaw: 1. Money for Nothing - that's what one couple is accusing a real estate of demanding. Image of Simon Bouda (Reporter) talking to first plaintiff in premises of second plaintiff 2. They have been slugged with a commission of almost $9,000.00, although their contract had well and truly expired and he is taking them to court to get it.

Image of first plaintiff in the premises of second plaintiff Mrs McGinniskin: 3. We just couldn't believe it, we were dumbfounded.

First plaintiff: Image of Grant McGinniskin and Judy McGinniskin 4. Just leave. Simon Bouda: 5. Don't push me. Image of property sold in Hidden Valley Mr McGinniskin: Image of front of office on premises of second plaintiff 6. Just like David & Goliath I think. Simon Bouda: 7. Don't push me, that's assault.

Mr McGinniskin: Image of Grant McGinniskin and Judy McGinniskin 8. Small people get walked on all the time.

Simon Bouda: 9. Grant and Judy McGinniskin claim they were taken for a ride by their real estate agent.

Image of property Mrs McGinniskin: 10. We feel they were very unprofessional… um and didn't try hard.

Simon Bouda: 11. You are taking them to court. First plaintiff: 12. Just leave. Simon Bouda: Image showing property 13. And this is the man they blame - Stock and Station Agent Stewart Rodgers.

Image to part of agency agreement of second plaintiff Mr McGinniskin: 14. I think he is expecting we are going to back down.

Image of web page smart vendor with property Hidden Valley Simon Bouda: Image of Grant McGinniskin 15. Grant and Judy McGinniskin put their NSW property on the market late last year signing an agreement with Connabarabran estate agent Davidson Cameron and licensee Stewart Rodgers. Mrs McGinniskin: 16. They said that they would push it really hard for us if we decided to go exclusive with them so we can make a quick sale.

Simon Bouda: 17. The McGinniskins signed a 4 month exclusive agreement. Image of Grant McGinniskin and Judy McGinniskin on property with dogs 18. In that time several people inspected the property but no one actually signed on the dotted line.

Simon Bouda: 19. When the exclusive agreement expired the McGinniskins told their agent they'd do it themselves.

Mr McGinniskins: 20. In one week we have it and get 30 phone calls and they have it for 4 months and bring maybe 7 couples out.

Simon Bouda: Image showing invoice 21. Three months after the contract expired Judy got a phone call from the same couple who had gone as far as to have the contracts drawn up months earlier. 22. She asked: "Is the property still on the market?" Judy McGinniskin said: "Yes it is". Image of Judy McGinniskin Simon Bouda: 23. Finally the deal was done, their home was sold then out of nowhere they copped an invoice from Davidson Cameron demanding their slice of the deal, the commission.

Image of David Merrill walking to his office Mrs McGinniskin: 24. We thought well we've sold it private and um they're really not entitled to anything.

Image of David Merrill sitting in office David Merrill: 25. It's buyer beware and that actually refers to choosing your real estate agent.

Simon Bouda: 26. As a former agent David Merrill claims many vendors pick an agent on the colour of their tie without knowing their track record and I think that's very important that someone should actually do some homework on the person who is selling your biggest asset.

Simon Bouda: 27. David's vital vendor tips that you must tick off first:

Image of Box of Vital Vendor Tips and commentary Simon Bouda: 28. One, get an independent valuation… don't rely on one agent's figure.

Simon Bouda: 29. Two, the agent must attend all inspections…

David Merrill: 30. It's pretty hard to sell a property if they are not showing the buyer through the house…

Simon Bouda: 31. Three, beware auctions are more expensive and a private sale may be just as successful.

Simon Bouda: 32. Four, And the most important tip -

David Merrill: 33. You don't sign an authority. Go and see if the agent actually works and see if he works hard enough for you…

Simon Bouda: 34. Finally, you're the boss so you can negotiate the commission.

Simon Bouda: 35. The agent can claim 100 per cent commission probably for doing 10 to 20 per cent of the job.

Simon Bouda: 36. So you're taking them to court now for not paying their commission.

First plaintiff: 37. Yeah… but they broke an agreement that's all.

Simon Bouda: 38. But the agreement expired in February didn't it…

Stewart Rodgers: 39. Get out.

Image of Neil Jenman Simon Bouda: 40. Legally Stewart Rodgers claims he is in the right due to clause in the contract that says: "The agent shall retain non-exclusive selling rights until terminated in writing."

Neil Jenman: 41. If you read these agreements carefully, no one would sign them if they were explained to them. Image of Simon Bouda and Stewart Rodgers in office of second plaintiff Simon Bouda: 42. Neil Jenman is the man who keeps agents honest.

Neil Jenman: 43. The trouble is with real estate is that once you sign these agreements with agents they got you. 44. They can claim legally and get all their commission.

Simon Bouda: 45. Davidson Cameron & Co defends the company's reputation and maintains Mr Rodgers acted fairly. Mr McGinniskin: 46. They reckon they introduced the couple to the property and… that's and they're just ah sticking to their guns. 47. Something's gotta be done there. 48. No one can come back 3 months, 5 months, 6 months, 2 years, 10 years. Image of words and company logo of second plaintiff Grimshaw: 49. Simon Bouda reporting there. Grant and Judy are now fighting this in the small claims tribunal. 50. We will let you know of the outcome.

Image of premises of second plaintiff and commentary

20/10/2008 - Correction to case citation - Paragraph(s) Case citation

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.