Blomfield v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 977

Blomfield v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 977

The question asked in cross-examination was not tendency evidence but went to the assessment of the witness's credibility. It was admissible under s 103 of the Evidence Act 1995, and there was no irreparable prejudice to the defendants that could not be cured by an appropriate jury direction. The evidence elicited was responsive and anticipated by the parties. The defendants' case did not justify exclusion under s 135.

Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Blomfield; First Defendant: Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: News Digital Media Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Question allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Tendency Evidence, Credibility, Cross Examination
Evidence Defamation Admissibility of Evidence Tendency Evidence Credibility Cross Examination

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Blomfield

Plaintiff

Nationwide News Pty Ltd

First Defendant

News Digital Media Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a question asked in cross-examination sought to adduce tendency evidence without notice contrary to Evidence Act 1995 s 97
  2. 2 Whether the question could be admitted as evidence going to credit or credibility under Evidence Act 1995 s 103
  3. 3 Whether the evidence should be excluded under Evidence Act 1995 s 135 due to prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The question asked in cross-examination was not tendency evidence but went to the assessment of the witness's credibility. It was admissible under s 103 of the Evidence Act 1995, and there was no irreparable prejudice to the defendants that could not be cured by an appropriate jury direction. The evidence elicited was responsive and anticipated by the parties. The defendants' case did not justify exclusion under s 135.

Court Disposition

Question allowed

Orders

  • The objection to the question is overruled; the question is allowed in cross-examination.