Defamation

• Justice Michael Lee was to hand down his decision on the matter, which went to trial for a month last year, on Thursday morning.
• Lawyers for Network Ten were successful in convincing the Federal Court it should hear fresh evidence not raised during the trial.
• Read more:
  A win for the press, a big loss for Ben Roberts-Smith: what does this judgment tell us about defamation law?

What happened in court?

• Invariably, where there are conflicting testimonies, a judge has to make a determination about whose evidence is to be preferred.
• To challenge it, the defendants applied to the court to reopen the case, and they were successful yesterday.
• As it happened, Justice Lee was satisfied the new evidence, if credible, would be fresh and compelling.
• If Auerbach does give evidence, it is likely Lehrmann himself will take the stand again to give his response to these anticipated revelations.

Will this make a difference to the outcome?

• The evidence, if accepted, will weigh heavily into the credibility of the testimonies of those who have given evidence, especially that of Lehrmann, and the crucial findings of fact in the case.
• Lehrmann’s criminal rape trial ended in October 2022 when Australian Capital Territory Chief Justice Lucy McCallum determined there had been juror misconduct.

Trials through a camera lens

• Lehrmann launched his defamation case against Network Ten and Wilkinson safe in the knowledge that no adverse finding had been made against him in the criminal trial.
• The onus is on the defendants to successfully claim one of the defences to defamation, in this case, contextual truth.
• Network Ten needs this new evidence to push home its case that contextual truth has been established.

Rick Sarre does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• AI continues to rapidly change our world, including the way we create content.
• The subsequent agreement introduced a framework to safeguard performers' rights and paved the way for future discussions on personal rights and AI.
• As AI continues to become an integral part of creative processes, companies and creators must tread carefully to navigate potential legal ramifications."
• For more insights around the impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights, read the full article .

• Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI) was named as a defendant in a lawsuit titled Scott O. Sapulpa v. Gannett Co., Inc. in District Court in the State of Oklahoma.
• Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Gannett liable for defamation and awarded plaintiff actual damages of $5 million.
• Gannett believes that the jury verdict was a result of errors in the way the Court administered the case and a flawed trial process.
• The amount of damages awarded, if any, would be covered by insurance and Gannett does not expect a material impact to its financials or liquidity.

• Former President Donald Trump has vowed to appeal journalist E. Jean Carroll’s major legal victory over him on Jan. 26, 2024, when a Manhattan jury determined that Trump must pay her US$83.3 million for repeatedly defaming Carroll.
• The jury awarded Carroll US$7.3 million for damage to her reputation, $11 million for emotional harm and $65 million for punitive damages.
• The Conversation U.S. spoke with civil procedure scholar Jayne Ressler to understand what happens now that the jury has announced its award to Carroll.

What exactly does ‘punitive damages’ mean?

• Research has shown that about 5%, or sometimes less, of civil cases wind up having punitive damages rewarded.
• Punitive damages are separate from compensatory damages – meaning, the amount of compensation that Carroll should be rewarded because of direct harm to her.

Does Trump need to pay these damages immediately?

• Defendants don’t say, “Cool, here is a check for whatever amount.” It is a long appeal process that happens with these damages.
• Trump has said he will appeal the decision, and he will likely first argue that the compensatory damages are too high.

How does a jury reach a specific amount when determining punitive damages?

• There is no exact accounting behind the dollar amount of these damages in general.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has not set out an exact ratio to say when punitive damages are too excessive, in accordance with compensatory damages.
• But it has suggested that there should be some correlation between the compensatory damages and the punitive damages.

Assuming that Trump reaches the end of an appeals process and is still ordered to pay this full $83.3 million, how would that be enforced?

• Or the next thing he could do is say he doesn’t have the assets to pay.
• If the court determines he does have the assets and he still does not pay, he would be held in contempt of court.
• With Trump in particular, who is well known for drawing out legal processes, the appeals process could take a long time.

Are there downsides to awarding such a high amount of punitive damages?

For the average person to see something like $83.3 million, it can make you say, “Wow, what kind of court system is this?” No one is saying that Carroll was harmed at an amount that is equivalent to $83.3 million. And the $65 million of punitive damages, in particular, is not about how much Carroll was harmed. It is about punishing Trump’s bad behavior and getting him to stop doing it.
Jayne Ressler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.