Joe Hockey awarded $200,000 against Fairfax

[Neferti]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-30/t ... ax/6582900

Treasurer Joe Hockey has won a defamation case against Fairfax Media.

The Federal Court has been examining whether Mr Hockey's reputation was damaged by a series of reports last year from Fairfax, including an article headlined "Treasurer for sale".

Justice Richard White found that a poster headline and tweets reading "Treasurer for sale" were defamatory.

Mr Hockey was awarded $200,000 in damages.

All other claims made by Mr Hockey were dismissed.

Justice White found that Fairfax Media may have been able to rely on a defence of qualified privilege to justify the headline and tweets, however this defence was not available because the headline was motivated by "malice".

He was critical of Sydney Morning Herald editor Darren Goodsir.

The court previously heard Goodsir had sent an email to journalist Sean Nicholls in March 2014.

It said: "Given what [The Age editor-in-chief Andrew Holden] and I endured last week with Hockey, I want to have this nailed to the cross in more ways than one."

Mr Hockey's lawyer had argued that Fairfax was motivated by "petty spite" and revenge for being forced to correct and apologise for a previous article about the Treasurer.

Justice White said he considered Goodsir was: "motivated by his animus towards Mr Hockey and that he sought a headline which would be hurtful of, or damaging to, Mr Hockey."

"This led him to overlook that Mr Nicholls' article indicated that what could be obtained by a political donation in the form of membership of the NSF, was access to Mr Hockey and not Mr Hockey's judgment, or discretion, or influence and that Mr Hockey was not for sale at all," he said.

"Mr Goodsir had lost objectivity. If it was not for his desire to get back at Mr Hockey, I consider it probable that he would have selected a less provocative headline.

"Mr Goodsir's focus on Mr Hockey personally is also seen in email, namely: 'I have long dreamed [well actually only since last Friday], of a headline that screams: Sloppy Joe!' ............

[mantra]

Nothing worse has been said about him than any other politician. He shouldn't have been awarded damages, because this precedent will end up silencing any criticism against our politicians - whether left or right wing. They will all want to sue now which will prevent any honest coverage on them. Hockey comes across as more of a weakling now than the earlier media portrayal of him did.

[Bart]

Great job Joe, this will make Fairfax pull their heads in!

[Neferti]

Nothing worse has been said about him than any other politician. He shouldn't have been awarded damages, because this precedent will end up silencing any criticism against our politicians - whether left or right wing. They will all want to sue now which will prevent any honest coverage on them. Hockey comes across as more of a weakling now than the earlier media portrayal of him did.

IF somebody "defames" you, you too can now sue for "damages". Ask Aussie about "precedents".

[Bart]

Nothing worse has been said about him than any other politician. He shouldn't have been awarded damages, because this precedent will end up silencing any criticism against our politicians - whether left or right wing. They will all want to sue now which will prevent any honest coverage on them. Hockey comes across as more of a weakling now than the earlier media portrayal of him did.

IF somebody "defames" you, you too can now sue for "damages". Ask Aussie about "precedents".

Eventually these left wing clap trap newspapers may start reporting news rather than slurring and defaming to give the brain dead nuff nuffs cheap laughs

[Neferti]

Nothing worse has been said about him than any other politician. He shouldn't have been awarded damages, because this precedent will end up silencing any criticism against our politicians - whether left or right wing. They will all want to sue now which will prevent any honest coverage on them. Hockey comes across as more of a weakling now than the earlier media portrayal of him did.

IF somebody "defames" you, you too can now sue for "damages". Ask Aussie about "precedents".

Eventually these left wing clap trap newspapers may start reporting news rather than slurring and defaming to give the brain dead nuff nuffs cheap laughs

I think we will need to dispose of the leftard greens and labor followers in the Media first.

[Bart]

Nothing worse has been said about him than any other politician. He shouldn't have been awarded damages, because this precedent will end up silencing any criticism against our politicians - whether left or right wing. They will all want to sue now which will prevent any honest coverage on them. Hockey comes across as more of a weakling now than the earlier media portrayal of him did.

IF somebody "defames" you, you too can now sue for "damages". Ask Aussie about "precedents".

Eventually these left wing clap trap newspapers may start reporting news rather than slurring and defaming to give the brain dead nuff nuffs cheap laughs

I think we will need to dispose of the leftard greens and labor followers in the Media first.

Best & quickest way of shutting up the nuff nuff brain dead greens is to sell the ABC, or sack Mark Scott, the ABC Board or even Malcolm Turnbull (useless git he is)

[boxy]

The judgement was that the article itself wasn't defamatory, only the headlines, when viewed in isolation.

Access to the treasurer (and other Liberal politicians) is for sale, even to Mafiosos. Just ask Mandy Vanstone (don't expect an answer though)

[Bart]

The judgement was that the article itself wasn't defamatory, only the headlines, when viewed in isolation.

Access to the treasurer (and other Liberal politicians) is for sale, even to Mafiosos. Just ask Mandy Vanstone (don't expect an answer though)

Dont forget how Krudd sold out to the media, sold out to anyone who gave him money


what a whore!

[boxy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/i ... ns/6579076