The Australian loses appeal over claims former journalist was ‘habitually intoxicated’
Six months after being ordered to pay damages of $100,000 for a Media Diary story in The Australian describing a former Townsville Bulletin journalist as “habitually intoxicated”, News Corp has lost an appeal against the decision in the Queensland Supreme Court.
Weatherup was given a good behaviour bond after admitting damaging his neighbour’s car. Source: Townsville Bulletin
Former Townsville Bulletin reporter Malcolm Weatherup and writer of the local blog Townsville Magpie, launched action against News Corp after a story was published in The Australian’s Media Diary section in 2014 describing the former Network Nine reporter as “Malcolm ‘always under the weather up'”.
Under the headline ‘Wrong side of the bench’, the story reported Weatherup’s appearance in Townsville Magistrates Court after he pleaded guilty to wilful damage after a parking altercation which had been reported in the Townsville Bulletin.
Reporting the case, Diary described Weatherup as having left the Townsville Bulletin after “incurring the wrath of a number of judges”.
In November the Supreme Court ordered News pay $100,000 damages for the imputation.
The court found the article imputed that “he is a person habitually intoxicated” and that “his habitual intoxication was sufficient to incur the wrath of judges, thereby causing his being obliged to leave the employment of the Townsville Bulletin”.
During the course of the case a series of witnesses were called, many former work colleagues of Weatherup, and the proprietor of a restaurant where Weatherup often ate lunch – and where it was reported he would have one of two glasses of wine.
After the jury found in Weatherup’s favour, Justice David North said News Corp’s defence had fallen short.
“It is likely, in my view, that it cannot have escaped the defendant and its legal advisers in the preparation for the trial that the evidence of the witnesses to be called in the defendant’s case would fall well short of proving habitual intoxication on the part of the plaintiff with the consequence that the plaintiff was obliged to leave his employment,” Judge North said in his judgement.
“Nor have I overlooked the circumstance that, although the article was published in a national newspaper and in the ‘media’ section, the plaintiff did not call witnesses to give evidence of the matters pointed to by the defendant.”
In the appeal judgement the court said that there was a difference between being affected by alcohol and being intoxicated.
“The appellant’s case at trial, like its case on appeal, rests largely upon the respondent’s own evidence of visiting Michel’s three days each week and of some fellow workers smelling alcohol on his breath when he returned to work,” the judgement said.
“There is a difference between a person being affected by alcohol and being intoxicated. There also is a difference between a person being intoxicated on occasions and being habitually intoxicated. The appellant had the onus of proving that the respondent was habitually intoxicated. A properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude, based on its assessment of the evidence, that the appellant had not discharged its onus of proof. The third ground of appeal is not established.”
News Corp has been ordered to pay damages $100,000 plus interests and costs.
Weatherup said in a statement to Mumbrella that he had always been professional in his approach to work.
“I have never been ‘drunk’ on duty in any newsroom in which I have worked, Christmas parties excepted and even then, rarely,” Weatherup said.
“This was a personal and totally untrue slur made up by a former colleague who fed it to The Australian newspaper. To which I say, karma at work.”
News Corp did not respond to Mumbrella’s requests for comment.
