Bass v McDonald & TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.10) [2001] NSWSC 1039
The plaintiff was confined to publication in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra and Albury because, on the evidence, it was not open to infer that the programme was also broadcast elsewhere in Australia; the contrary possibility was equally likely, and any finding of further publication would be unjustifiable speculation.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation / Reasons for Ruling on Evidence of Publication
- Outcome
- The inference of publication in other parts of Australia was not open; the plaintiff was confined to the specified places of publication.
- Legal Topics
- ['publication' 'broadcast Publication' 'inference From Evidence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Reasons for Ruling on Evidence of Publication
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether it was open to a jury to infer that a programme broadcast in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra and Albury was also broadcast in other parts of Australia, particularly Hobart and Darwin.']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff was confined to publication in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra and Albury because, on the evidence, it was not open to infer that the programme was also broadcast elsewhere in Australia; the contrary possibility was equally likely, and any finding of further publication would be unjustifiable speculation.
Court Disposition
The inference of publication in other parts of Australia was not open; the plaintiff was confined to the specified places of publication.
Orders
- []
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment