Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 4) [2024] FCA 148

Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 4) [2024] FCA 148

The impugned evidence at transcript pages 2282 and 2285 was admissible because the applicant had led significant evidence of good reputation, the respondents were entitled to challenge that evidence, the applicant was not deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence of good reputation and was not prejudiced, and the evidence at transcript page 2285 was responsive, relevant, and not shown to warrant exclusion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Bad Reputation Evidence' 'reputation Evidence in Mitigation of Damages' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135']
['evidence' 'defamation'] ['admissibility of Bad Reputation Evidence' 'reputation Evidence in Mitigation of Damages' 'evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 135']

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 Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the applicant's bad reputation was admissible where the respondents had not pleaded the matter in mitigation of damages." 'Whether evidence at transcript page 2285 was non-responsive or should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned evidence at transcript pages 2282 and 2285 was admissible because the applicant had led significant evidence of good reputation, the respondents were entitled to challenge that evidence, the applicant was not deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence of good reputation and was not prejudiced, and the evidence at transcript page 2285 was responsive, relevant, and not shown to warrant exclusion under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Evidence admissible

Orders

  • ['The evidence at transcript pages 2282 and 2285 is admissible.']