Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 36) [2022] FCA 578

Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 36) [2022] FCA 578

The Court declined to exclude Person 5's evidence because the alleged Browne v Dunn failures were complex and should be dealt with at the conclusion of the evidence or in closing submissions; the respondents would suffer no prejudice other than a possibly longer trial, while exclusion in advance risked an almost inevitable retrial if the ruling were wrong. The request for particulars was a separate application requiring notice and precise topics, not an intermediate response to the evidence objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Ruling During Trial on Respondents' Objection to Evidence Given by Person 5
Outcome
Objection overruled.
Legal Topics
['browne V Dunn Rule' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'recall of Witnesses' 'particulars']
['evidence' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['browne V Dunn Rule' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'recall of Witnesses' 'particulars']

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 / Ruling During Trial on Respondents' Objection to Evidence Given by Person 5

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence given by the applicant's witness Person 5 should be excluded because matters in that evidence had allegedly not been put to the respondents' witnesses in accordance with Browne v Dunn." 'Whether alleged failures to comply with Browne v Dunn should be determined before the conclusion of the evidence.' 'Whether the Court should order the applicant to provide particulars as an intermediate course.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to exclude Person 5's evidence because the alleged Browne v Dunn failures were complex and should be dealt with at the conclusion of the evidence or in closing submissions; the respondents would suffer no prejudice other than a possibly longer trial, while exclusion in advance risked an almost inevitable retrial if the ruling were wrong. The request for particulars was a separate application requiring notice and precise topics, not an intermediate response to the evidence objection.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Person 5 was not excluded.' 'No order for particulars was made on the objection to admissibility.']