Nu-Tec v ABC [2010] NSWSC 711

Nu-Tec v ABC [2010] NSWSC 711

The transcript tenders were rejected because, assuming admissibility, their probative value was negligible where understandable DVD recordings were available, and was outweighed under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 by the danger that written transcripts of transient broadcasts would compromise the jury's task of assessing the impression made on an ordinary reasonable viewer. Mr Robertson's claim was dismissed because, after the plaintiffs closed their case, there was no evidence upon which the jury could reasonably find on the probabilities that the pleaded identification circumstances were established, including that he was a director of Nu-Tec or involved in its management.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Arising Out of Two ABC 7.30 Report Broadcasts / Reserved Reasons for Procedural Rulings During a Jury Trial, Including Rejection of Transcript Tenders and Dismissal Application After the Plaintiffs Closed Their Case
Outcome
Tender of the two transcripts rejected; second plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Transcripts of Television Broadcasts' 'identification in Defamation' 'dismissal Where Judgment for Plaintiff Could Not Be Supported' 'jury Trial Under the Defamation Act 1974']
['defamation' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Transcripts of Television Broadcasts' 'identification in Defamation' 'dismissal Where Judgment for Plaintiff Could Not Be Supported' 'jury Trial Under the Defamation Act 1974']

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 Out of Two ABC 7.30 Report Broadcasts / Reserved Reasons for Procedural Rulings During a Jury Trial, Including Rejection of Transcript Tenders and Dismissal Application After the Plaintiffs Closed Their Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether transcripts of the two television broadcasts should be admitted when DVD recordings of the broadcasts were already in evidence.' 'Whether there was evidence upon which the jury could reasonably find that the broadcasts identified the second plaintiff, Mr Robertson.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to re-open their case to call Mr Robertson or tender further material after closing their case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The transcript tenders were rejected because, assuming admissibility, their probative value was negligible where understandable DVD recordings were available, and was outweighed under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 by the danger that written transcripts of transient broadcasts would compromise the jury's task of assessing the impression made on an ordinary reasonable viewer. Mr Robertson's claim was dismissed because, after the plaintiffs closed their case, there was no evidence upon which the jury could reasonably find on the probabilities that the pleaded identification circumstances were established, including that he was a director of Nu-Tec or involved in its management.

Court Disposition

Tender of the two transcripts rejected; second plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The tender of the two transcripts was rejected.' 'The claim brought by the second plaintiff, Mr Robertson, was dismissed.']