Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651

Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651

None of the pleaded imputations were carried by the broadcast to an ordinary reasonable viewer who recognised Babywedge and the plaintiffs; even if carried, they were not defamatory of the personal or business reputation of the plaintiffs. Further, Born Brands failed to establish it was an excluded corporation under s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 and could not maintain a defamation action. Defendants established justification (truth) for all relevant imputations. Qualified privilege, properly understood, was not available to the defendants, but in any event, there was no malice. The claim for injurious falsehood failed because the relevant statements were not shown to be false, there was...

Parties
First Plaintiff: Born Brands Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Hayley Birtles-Eades; Third Plaintiff: Sally Birtles; First Defendant: Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Gabriella Rogers; Third Defendant: Georgie Gardener
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation and Injurious Falsehood) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay costs, subject to application for a different order within 7 days.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Justification, Contextual Imputation, Injurious Falsehood, Damages
Defamation Torts Qualified Privilege Justification Contextual Imputation Injurious Falsehood Damages

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 7 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Born Brands Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Hayley Birtles-Eades

Second Plaintiff

Sally Birtles

Third Plaintiff

Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Gabriella Rogers

Second Defendant

Georgie Gardener

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation and Injurious Falsehood) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether any defamatory imputations were carried by the broadcast
  2. 2 Whether any imputations were defamatory of the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether Born Brands Pty Ltd satisfied ‘excluded corporation’ requirements under Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 9

Ratio Decidendi

None of the pleaded imputations were carried by the broadcast to an ordinary reasonable viewer who recognised Babywedge and the plaintiffs; even if carried, they were not defamatory of the personal or business reputation of the plaintiffs. Further, Born Brands failed to establish it was an excluded corporation under s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 and could not maintain a defamation action. Defendants established justification (truth) for all relevant imputations. Qualified privilege, properly understood, was not available to the defendants, but in any event, there was no malice. The claim for injurious falsehood failed because the relevant statements were not shown to be false, there was...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay costs, subject to application for a different order within 7 days.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants.
  • Subject to any application for a different order being made in writing within 7 days, order the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings.