Reported Decision : [2001] NSWSC 1039 [2001] ACL Rep 145 NSW 55 New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Bass v McDonald & TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.10) [2001] NSWSC 1039 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 16791/90 17 - 19 October 2001 22 & 23 October 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 & 26 October 2001 29 - 31 October 2001 1 & 2 November 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 November 2001 Robin Bass PARTIES : Thomas McDonald TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd JUDGMENT OF : Sperling J at 1 COUNSEL : Mr T Molomby with Mr R Rasmussen for the Plaintiff Mr B McClintock SC with Mr M Richardson for the Second Defendant SOLICITORS : William Oates Lawyers for the Plaintiff Gilbert & Tobin Lawyers for the Second Defendant CATCHWORDS : Defamation - whether evidence of publication in various parts of Australia - no question of principle DECISION : See paragraph 3 of the judgment. - 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION Defamation List Sperling J Wednesday 21 November 2001 16791/90 Robin Bass v Thomas McDonald & TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd Judgment (No.10) 1 His Honour: On 2 November 2001 (Transcript 466), I ruled that the plaintiff was confined to publication in the places specified in answers by the defendant to interrogatories, namely Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, plus two other places mentioned in evidence, namely, Canberra and Albury. I said I would give reasons later. 2 Mr Molomby submitted that it would be open to a jury to infer that if the programme was broadcast as above, it was, more likely than not, also broadcast in other parts of Australia and, in particular, in Hobart and Darwin. 3 In my view the inference was not open. The contrary was as likely as not the case. The competing possibilities were of equal probability. The jury had no information as to what network arrangements existed or how they operated, or as to the criteria used to decide where to broadcast such a programme, even assuming commercial arrangements made more extensive broadcasting practicable. To find such further publication would have been unjustifiable speculation. -o0o- Last Modified: 11/23/2001 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.