DOJAS V. TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY. LIMITED [2001] NSWCA 398

DOJAS V. TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY. LIMITED [2001] NSWCA 398

The challenged direction was not wrong in law because acceptance of the claimant's identification witnesses did not compel a finding that the telecast material would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the claimant to identify her; although the first additional direction may have had potential to confuse, no adequate further direction was sought and no further objection was taken after the second additional direction, so the circumstances did not justify granting leave to appeal for a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Arising From Telecast Program and Promotions / Application for Leave to Appeal From Jury Verdict for the Opponent
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['identification of Plaintiff' 'televised Image' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Appeal' 'new Trial']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['identification of Plaintiff' 'televised Image' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Appeal' 'new Trial']

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

Defamation Proceedings Arising From Telecast Program and Promotions / Application for Leave to Appeal From Jury Verdict for the Opponent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the televised material was such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with the claimant to believe she was the person identified.' 'Whether the trial judge\'s additional direction that the jury was not bound to answer question 1 "Yes" even if it accepted all the evidence was wrong in law, prejudicial, misleading or confusing.' "Whether leave should be granted to add a ground alleging that the jury's decision was unreasonable or perverse." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted so that a new trial may be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged direction was not wrong in law because acceptance of the claimant's identification witnesses did not compel a finding that the telecast material would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the claimant to identify her; although the first additional direction may have had potential to confuse, no adequate further direction was sought and no further objection was taken after the second additional direction, so the circumstances did not justify granting leave to appeal for a new trial.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to add ground 3A granted.' 'Leave to add ground 6A refused.' 'Leave to appeal refused with costs.']