Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1647

Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1647

Paragraphs [107], [108], [114], [120], and [121] of the second plaintiff's statement are admissible only as relevant to the injurious falsehood claim, not defamation, as they fail to establish that adverse comments identified the plaintiffs with the product in question at the relevant time; paragraph [111], involving a friend aware of the plaintiff's association with the product, is admissible for both claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Specific Paragraphs in Witness Statement
Outcome
Objection upheld in part: Paragraph [111] admissible for both claims; paragraphs [107], [108], [114], [120], and [121] admissible for injurious falsehood claim only.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification in Defamation and Injurious Falsehood' 'inference From Circumstantial Evidence']
['evidence' 'defamation' 'torts'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification in Defamation and Injurious Falsehood' 'inference From Circumstantial Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Specific Paragraphs in Witness Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence identifies plaintiffs as persons subject to adverse comments; whether inference can be drawn that persons in evidence viewed the broadcast; admissibility of paragraphs in witness statement for purposes of claims in defamation and injurious falsehood']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs [107], [108], [114], [120], and [121] of the second plaintiff's statement are admissible only as relevant to the injurious falsehood claim, not defamation, as they fail to establish that adverse comments identified the plaintiffs with the product in question at the relevant time; paragraph [111], involving a friend aware of the plaintiff's association with the product, is admissible for both claims.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld in part: Paragraph [111] admissible for both claims; paragraphs [107], [108], [114], [120], and [121] admissible for injurious falsehood claim only.

Orders

  • ['Allow paragraphs [107], [108], [114], [120], and [121] on the limited basis that each is relevant to the claim for damages for injurious falsehood but not to the claim in defamation.' 'Allow paragraph [111] in respect of both claims.']