Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1647

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1647 Hearing dates: 21-25; 28-30 October 2013 Decision date: 21 October 2013 Before: Adamson J Decision: With respect to the second plaintiff's statement admitted as Exhibit L1: (1) Allow [107], [108], [114], [120] and [121] on the limited basis that each is relevant to the claim for damages for injurious falsehood but not to the claim in defamation. (2) Allow [111] in respect of both claims. Catchwords: EVIDENCE- whether plaintiffs identified in evidence of persons who made adverse comments about the plaintiffs' product- whether inference could be drawn that such persons viewed the broadcast that constituted the matter complained of Cases Cited: Baltinos v Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited (1986) 6 NSWLR 85 Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Limited v Parras [2002] NSWCA 202 Radio 2UE v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; 238 CLR 460 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Born Brands Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff) Hayley Birtles-Eades (Second Plaintiff) Sally Birtles (Third Plaintiff) Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Gabriella Rogers (Second Defendant) Georgie Gardener (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: CA Evatt and RKM Rasmussen (Plaintiffs) TD Blackburn SC and ATS Dawson (Defendants) Solicitors: Beazley Singleton Lawyers (Plaintiffs) Johnson Winter and Slattery (Defendants) File Number(s): 2011/115199 Publication restriction: Nil