Purcell & Anor v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 926

Purcell & Anor v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 926

The transcript of the video evidence should not be provided to the jury, as the existence of the actual video sufficiently enables the jury to consider the publication. Providing the transcript risks distracting the jury from their task and may prejudice the parties.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Gordon Purcell; Second Plaintiff: Allure Marketing Pty Limited; First Defendant: Cruising Yacht Club of Australia Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Johan Christian Hugo van Kretschmar; Third Defendant: Peter Hallam Bush
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Admissibility of Transcript
Outcome
Transcript not provided to jury; marked for identification only
Legal Topics
Evidence Admissibility, Use of Transcripts, Jury Procedure
Defamation Evidence Admissibility Use of Transcripts Jury Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Gordon Purcell

First Plaintiff

Allure Marketing Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Cruising Yacht Club of Australia Pty Limited

First Defendant

Johan Christian Hugo van Kretschmar

Second Defendant

Peter Hallam Bush

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Admissibility of Transcript

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a transcript of a video recording of spoken words at a press conference is admissible in a jury defamation trial
  2. 2 Whether providing the transcript to the jury is appropriate when video evidence exists

Ratio Decidendi

The transcript of the video evidence should not be provided to the jury, as the existence of the actual video sufficiently enables the jury to consider the publication. Providing the transcript risks distracting the jury from their task and may prejudice the parties.

Court Disposition

Transcript not provided to jury; marked for identification only

Orders

  • Schedule A marked for identification as '2'
  • Transcript declined to be provided to jury