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

New South Wales Supreme Court

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

HEARING DATE(S) : 10 May - 1 June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF : Harrison J

DECISION : Question rejected.

CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE – defamation – objection to question seeking to elicit opinion of a third party about the first defendant's motives for writing the matter complained of – where question not limited to third party's understanding of what the article may have been thought on its face or by its terms to convey – hearsay – question disallowed.

LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 2005

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

Lana Mundine (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Avery Brown (First Defendant) APN News and Media Limited (Second Defendant) Daily Examiner Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2009/296431

T Molomby SC with R K M Rasmussen (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : P M Sibtain (First Defendant) A T S Dawson (Second and Third Defendants)

Slater & Gordon (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Holding Redlich (First Defendant) Banki Haddock Fiora (Second and Third Defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

HARRISON J

11 May 2010

2009/296431 Lana Mundine v Avery Brown, APN News and Media Limited and Daily Examiner Pty Ltd (No 2)

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The defendants objected to a question asked of the plaintiff during her evidence in chief. I disallowed the question and indicated that I would give reasons for my decision in due course. Background 2 The plaintiff alleges that an article that was published in The Daily Examiner on 18 August 2008 defamed her. The plaintiff is and was at the time of the offending publication a mental health worker employed by the Aboriginal Medical Service in Grafton. The paper circulated in the Clarence Valley, a geographical area that includes Grafton and surrounding districts. The plaintiff provided services to the Aboriginal community in that area. The article complained of suggested that the plaintiff fell short of her professional obligations as a mental health worker for the aboriginal community in a number of respects. The defamatory imputations for which the plaintiff contends are as follows: 1. As a mental health worker the plaintiff was failing to meet her obligations to the aboriginal community.