Chau Chak Wing wins defamation case against former Fairfax Media and journalist

Chinese-Australian billionaire ‘won’t apologise for my philanthropy’ after landmark defamation win against Fairfax Media.

Chau Chak Wing leaves the Federal Court, in Sydney, Tuesday, June 19, 2018. Chinese-Australian billionaire Chau Chak Wing is suing Fairfax Media and a journalist for defamation over a 2015 online article. (AAP Image/Chris Pavlich) NO ARCHIVING

After winning $280,000 in defamation damages from Fairfax Media, Chinese-Australian businessman Chau Chak Wing has promised to donate the entire amount to Australian veterans and their families.

His promise comes after the Federal Court’s Justice Michael Wigney found that an article written by John Garnaut had defamed Dr Chau by suggesting he was part of a conspiracy to bribe the president of the United Nations general assembly.

Dr Chau welcomed today’s ruling and said Justice Wigney had righted a wrong that had deeply affected his family.

“I put my faith in the Australian legal system, and today that faith has been vindicated. I am very grateful to the Federal Court of Australia for its fair hearing throughout this case,” Dr Chau said in a statement.

“This experience has taken a significant toll both on my personal and professional reputation and my health, but most importantly it has impacted on my family.

“As a proud Australian citizen, I will continue to donate to worthy causes as I have always done, particularly in education.

“I make no apology for my philanthropy, and consider it a duty to give back after the good fortune I have experienced with my business. As an Australian citizen, I will continue to proudly promote positive Australia-China relations.

“I am in the fortunate position where I have the resources available to me to defend myself when media outlets make false and misleading claims, through the Australian legal system. However, others might not have the means to defend themselves and prove their innocence,” Dr Chau’s statement said.

The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have defended their journalism and promised to appeal.

As well as being ordered to pay damaged of $280,000, the newspapers were also ordered to pay Dr Chau’s legal costs which could run to at least another $500,000.

Justice Michael Wigney issued a damning assessment the 2015 article, which had been written by John Garnaut.

It was derisive, disparaging, at times sneering and contemptuous, the judge said.

Its tone “flows from the sensational and hyperbolic language at times employed, as well as from some rather gratuitious barbs and insinuations; some subtle, others not,” Justice Wigney said.

A spokesman for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which are now owned by Nine, said the newspapers were disappointed that the judge did not uphold their public interest defence “which was the only one available to us under Australian defamation law”.

“John Garnaut is a careful, meticulous, Walkley Award-winning journalist who is globally recognised for his China expertise.

“Within the current defamation regime, both The Sydney Morning Herald and Th Age remain committed to the role of public interest journalism. We source and check all our stories vigorously and take great pride in our role to inform the community debate,” the spokesman said.

Garnaut said he placed great store in his personal integrity and professional credibility.

“I took great care in compiling this story, building on six years of close observation. I believe the story was reported fairly, responsibly and in the public interest,” Garnaut said.

Justice Wigney’s ruling concerns an article published online that contained imputations that Dr Chau participated in a bribery conspiracy, deserved to be extradited to the United States on criminal charges and had bribed John Ashe, the president of the UN general Assembly.

Dr Chau, who is a major donor to political parties, had also argued that Garnaut’s article defamed him by suggesting he had built a business empire in Australia based on illicit payments to government officials.

However Justice Wigney found that this imputation was not present in Garnaut’s article.

Dr Chau said in a statement that the most important outcome from the of the case had always been to clear his name “which is exactly what Justice Wigney has delivered in his judgment today”.

“I will be donating the damages awarded by Justice Wigney in full to a number of charities supporting Australian veterans and their families,” he said.

“In handing down his judgment today, Justice Wigney found that the language used in the offending article was not only at time imprecise, ambiguous and loose, but also sensational and derisory,” Dr Chau said.

His statement noted that it was not reasonable for Fairfax and Garnaut to claim Dr Chau might remain in China to avoid extradition.

“The responses that had been given to the journalists by Dr Chau and Ms [Winky] Chow were, for the most part, presented in the article in a way which undermined, subverted and even ridiculed or disparaged what they had said.

“Those features contributed to the overall sneering and deprecating tone of the article,” Dr Chau’s statement said.

Garnaut, a former Beijing correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald, is a former staffer for Malcolm Turnbull and has been a principal international adviser in the department of prime minister and cabinet.

He is the son of Ross Garnaut, a former Australian ambassador to China.

In separate defamation proceedings, Dr Chau is suing Fairfax Media, the ABC and Fairfax journalist Nick McKenzie over a report that he says portrayed him as a Chinese spy who had betrayed Australia and served the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.

Fairfax is challenging a ruling in that case that threw out its defence of truth, leaving it with the defence of statutory qualified privilege, which is intended to protect publications whose conduct is reasonable.

In the Garnaut case, Fairfax had unsuccessfully sought to defend its report by claiming statutory qualified privilege.

Dr Chau’s victory comes at a time when the Council of Australian Governments has established a working party of officials from every jurisdiction that is conducting a major review of defamation law.

Because the defence of statutory qualified privilege has rarely succeeded, a coalition of media organisations has urged the nation’s governments to replace it with a broader defence that is used in Britain.

That coalition includes Fairfax as well as News Corp, which publishes The Weekend Australian.

The British defence favoured by the media coalition protects public interest material that the publisher reasonably believed was in the public interest.

The coalition of media organisations has also urged the nation’s governments to restore the effectiveness of the $389,500 cap on defamation damages.

In the Garnaut case, Dr Chau’s barrister, Bruce McClintock SC, had told Justice Wigney he was not inviting the court to exceed the $389,500 cap on damages because “it is vindication my client primarily seeks”.