Mundine v Brown (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 514

Mundine v Brown (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 514

The question was disallowed because it sought to elicit inadmissible hearsay: the opinion of a third party about the defendant's motives for writing the article, not limited to his understanding of the article’s face meaning. Such evidence is not permissible and cannot be tested in cross-examination.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lana Mundine; First Defendant: Avery Brown; Second Defendant: APN News and Media Limited; Third Defendant: Daily Examiner Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Objection
Outcome
Question rejected
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Opinion Evidence, Defamation—malice and State of Mind, Damages—relevance of Malice
Evidence Defamation Hearsay Opinion Evidence Defamation—malice and State of Mind Damages—relevance of Malice

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lana Mundine

Plaintiff

Avery Brown

First Defendant

APN News and Media Limited

Second Defendant

Daily Examiner Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a question seeking a third party's opinion on a defendant's motives in writing a defamatory article is admissible evidence
  2. 2 Whether the question is inadmissible as hearsay and/or unfairly prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether s 36 of the Defamation Act precludes the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The question was disallowed because it sought to elicit inadmissible hearsay: the opinion of a third party about the defendant's motives for writing the article, not limited to his understanding of the article’s face meaning. Such evidence is not permissible and cannot be tested in cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Question rejected

Orders

  • The question asked of the plaintiff regarding Mr Monaghan's opinion about the first defendant's motives is disallowed.