Entienne Pty Ltd v Festival City Broadcasters: 8 Mar 2001

References: [2001] SASC 60
Links: Austlii
Coram: Olsson, Duggan and Williams JJ
Ratio: Austlii (Supreme Court of South Australia) CRIMINAL — DRUG TRADING Appeal against dismissal of appellant’s claim against the respondent for damages for alleged defamation – appellant was the owner of a business known as ‘Flash Gelataria’ on Hindley Street, with a lane adjacent to it – appellant called ‘Mr Flash’, ‘The Flashman’ or variations of these titles – claim based upon phrase ‘Mate, just go over in the lane and ask for the flashman and he’ll fix you right up’, spoken by a fictitious character named ‘Keefy’ during a breakfast radio session – evidence indicated that, at the relevant time, there had been considerable media publicity to suggest that illegal drug dealing did in fact occur in Hindley Street – witnesses called to establish fact that either they heard some or all of the broadcast and took it as a suggestion that the appellant was involved in selling drugs from his premises; or heard other persons discussing the broadcast and placing that interpretation on it. Whether words, having regard to their language and context, could be regarded in law as capable of referring to the appellant – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in finding that the words complained of were not defamatory – whether the learned trial judge erred in finding that the ordinary and reasonable listener would have been fully aware that the whole programme intended to be and was a comic programme of complete nonsense – whether the learned trial judge should have held that the ordinary and reasonable listener would have concluded that the appellant was identified and that it was alleged that the appellant used or was involved in selling illicit drugs and hence has been and was guilty of serious criminal offences.
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA ([2011] 2 WLR 91, Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 609, WLRD, [2010] WLR (D) 144, [2010] EMLR 23, [2010] FSR 30, [2011] 1 QB 497)
    The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 June 2020
Ref: 416367