Geoffrey Rush wins at least $ 850,000 in defamation lawsuit against News Corp.'s Daily Telegraph – live | Media

The fact that the Daily Telegraph did not speak to Norvill herself also contributed to the "carelessness" that resulted in higher damages.

Wigney writes, "What's important is that it's obvious that [journalist] Mr. Moran had not spoken to Mrs. Norvill and had not confirmed with her the details of the complaint. Indeed, it is clear that Mr. Moran knew that Mrs. Norvill did not want his identity revealed. "

With respect to the role of "sensational reporting" in awarding aggravated damages to Rush, Wigney's judgment specifically refers to the cover page of "King Leer".

"It's hard to see how the cover page image could be considered justifiable given the relative poverty of information that comes out of the content of the articles."

Wigney also pointed out that in the newspaper, a double page also contained an article on Don Burke "in the same" box that Rush's article.

"Perhaps most significantly, the juxtaposition of the article on Don Burke and his inclusion in the same" box "as the articles about Mr. Rush, clearly linked, and one could infer from, was intended to bind, the allegations against Mr. Rush to the story of Don Burke and the vast scandal Harvey Weinstein. "

The extent to which the allegations have been published. Wigney writes, "The substance of the Telegraph's publications has been largely republished in the United States and the United Kingdom."

Outlets included:

• Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Chicago Tribune, LA Times (USA)
• The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Independent (United Kingdom)
• Boston 25 News, New York NBC, Fox News (US TV)

Finally – Does this case highlight a problem with our defamation law system?

Rolph: "This is a very unusual case, because it concerns a very well known plaintiff who has been defamed very visibly. It was the story of an internationally renowned Australian who was picked up and relayed around the world – in that sense, it's a case of atypical defamation.

"Seen from another angle, I think the case shows – and the judge himself emphasized – that the defamation proceedings are ill-suited to rule on the type of allegations mentioned in the article, badual harbadment at work, because of the very accusatory nature of the proceedings. "

It is highly likely that the Telegraph will appeal costs – in the same way that Bauer Media has appealed the costs of Rebel Wilson's lawsuit.

What is more difficult to predict is whether they will have grounds to appeal the decision against them. A call can only be made on an error of law, but not on a mistake of fact.

"It's always difficult to intervene in a judgment that involves hearing witnesses and printing questions," says Rolph. "But it's not impossible, there have been cases [of appeal of verdict] with verdicts of jury ".

Today's judgment was rendered by the judge alone, which could facilitate the Telegraph's appeal of the verdict, explains Rolph, as the reasons are clearly set out.

"The judges give the reasons, but not the jurors," he says.

According to Professor Rolph, the Daily Telegraph could appeal, but it may be necessary to wait.

"The Telegraph can appeal but will probably have to wait for the next phase of this lawsuit. As announced by the judge, the amount of damages for economic damage remains to come. A call can be a break. "

David Rolph of the University of Sydney, defamation law expert, said it was "a total victory" for Rush because the judge "totally rejected the defense of the truth by Nationwide News ".

The written judgment of Wigney explains in more detail his remarks, considering that Norvill was "exaggerated and embellished".

Earlier, Norvill had told the court that she had the feeling that Armfield, Buday and Nevin were "complicit" in the harbadment and let it happen.

"We are from different generations," said Norvill. "Maybe we have different ideas about what is culturally appropriate in a workplace."

Wigney rejected the idea that older actors would not notice badual harbadment because of their age. "This submission is rejected," he wrote. "There is simply no basis for that."

He went on to add: "Ms. Norvill's apparent willingness to criticize Ms. Nevin, Ms. Buday and Mr. Armfield, even though she did not intend to do so, did not think very well. credibility and reliability as a witness. He showed a tendency to exaggerate and embellish. "

Wigney's judgment places great emphasis on the testimony of Neil Armfield, who led King Lear.

"Mr. Armfield was present during all the rehearsals. It is hard to imagine that, as the director of the play, he would have done anything but scrutinize and supervise the rehearsals. He denied seeing any of the acts described by Mrs. Norvill. "

He adds:

"Any future victim of badual misconduct who is sincere, who wishes to make a complaint to newspapers … will now be severely discouraged to do so because the consequences are extreme.

"If the judge criticizes the testimony of the victim in this case – which he did, I thought unnecessarily and at length – I think it sends a very bad sign, and that will mean that any reporting of these stories will a lot harder than it was. "

Media Watch moderator Paul Barry told ABC News that the Telegraph had been "demolished from the park" by judgment and that its behavior in the publishing was "absolutely stunning".

"They approached the Sydney Theater Company and asked if [there had been] a complaint. They did not have [Norvill’s] evidence. They only approached the STC on November 28 and they released the morning of the 30-36 hours later.

"I find it absolutely amazing that you can do it with a case of this importance. They do not go to Rush until 12 hours before the newspaper appears in the streets and two or three hours before the press rolls. "

Wigney on Norvill's credibility as a witness:

"In badessing Ms. Norvill's testimony, I am also aware that individuals who make allegations of badual badault or badual harbadment are often in a particularly vulnerable position and may face unique and difficult challenges when they testify. .

"The lack of corroboration is also a common feature of badual harbadment cases. Sexual harbadment is often surreptitious and does not occur in public. Many of these considerations apply to Mrs. Norvill's situation. I took them into account …

"However, several pieces of evidence raise important questions about his credibility as a witness."

Some excerpts from Wigney's full judgment concerning the credibility of witnesses.

Rush: "Mr. Rush was for the most part an impressive witness. Nothing in his behavior indicated that he was doing anything other than giving an accurate and honest account of relevant events and circumstances. "

Neil Armfield: "Mr. Armfield was an impressive witness. His credibility as a witness and the reliability of his testimony in general were not in issue.

"Despite his close friendship with Mr. Rush, I believe that he has provided frank, honest and reliable evidence on the facts and circumstances pertaining to the allegations. Nationwide and Mr. Moran did not submit the opposite. "

Helen Buday"Mrs. Buday was, at least in some ways, a unique, if not unusual, witness. For example, she repeatedly sang her answer to a question. She was also sometimes a difficult witness. She sometimes disrespected uselessly to the lead counsel of Nationwide and Mr. Moran.

"[But] I see no reason why his testimony should not be considered reliable. Nationwide and Mr. Moran did not finally make any submissions regarding Ms. Buday's credibility as a witness. "