Wagners to pay a quarter of Channel 9’s Court of Appeal costs over Grantham defamation case

Toowoomba businessman Denis Wagner has welcomed the end of a long-running legal battle after being ordered to pay a chunk of Channel 9’s legal bill.

Debris in the aftermath of flash flooding at Grantham – Wednesday January 12, 2011. Photo Bev Lacey / The Chronicle

The Wagner brothers have been ordered to pay a quarter of Channel 9 and journalist Nick Cater’s Court of Appeal costs.

The ruling comes after the broadcaster and journalist were successful in having an earlier Supreme Court judgment varied to prevent the double recovery of damages after they were ordered to pay Denis, John, Neill and Joe Wagner almost $3.7m in defamation damages in November 2019.

The Court of Appeal found Channel 9 and Mr Cater were unsuccessful on the other five grounds of their appeal, “by which they sought further reduction of the amounts of the judgments given against them by the court after trial”.

Denis Wagner welcomed the costs order.

“We accept the decision of the Court of Appeal and we look forward to bringing the matter to a final close,” he said.

The court’s costs order stems from a Supreme Court jury’s finding in 2019 that a 60 Minutes program aired on May 24, 2015, defamed the wealthy businessmen brothers.

The program included allegations falsely linking the collapse of walls at a Wagners’ quarry to the Grantham floods disaster.

The catastrophic flood killed 12 people in the Lockyer Valley town.

In awarding costs, the Court of Appeal found Channel 9 and Mr Cater were “successful on a substantial ground of contest in the appeal”.

“As well, it may be observed that the overall effect of the appellants’ success was to reduce the aggregate amount of the appellants’ several liabilities under the judgments appealed from by $800,000.”

However, in ordering the Wagner brothers to pay 25 per cent of Channel 9 and Mr Cater’s Court of Appeal costs, the justices found the successful appeal ground “was only a limited success and the judgments given at trial in the respondents’ favour were otherwise sustained”.