Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.2)

The dispute in Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Bass, suing the defendants, Mr McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, for defamation. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamatory statements made by the defendants regarding him on a television program. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the defendants could rely on the defence of common law qualified privilege, specifically in the context of a riposte, to avoid liability for defamation. Another question was whether the plaintiff's state of mind, including any malice, or the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's predominant motivation to injure the plaintiff, could defeat the qualified privilege defence.

The court examined the principles of common law qualified privilege, focusing on whether the defendant's state of mind concerning the truth or otherwise of the publication was relevant to the defence. The court also considered whether the defendant's knowledge that the person on whose behalf the riposte was made was predominantly motivated by an intention to injure the plaintiff would defeat the defence. The court found that the defendant's state of mind regarding the truth of the publication was not a factor in determining the availability of the qualified privilege defence. However, the court held that the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's predominant motivation to injure could be relevant in assessing whether the riposte was made in good faith. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendants could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege due to the plaintiff's predominant motivation to injure.

The court's reasoning and outcome in Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.2) established important principles regarding the defence of common law qualified privilege in the context of a riposte. The court clarified that the defendant's state of mind about the truth of the publication does not negate the qualified privilege defence. However, the defendant's awareness of the plaintiff's predominant motivation to injure can affect the assessment of good faith. In this case, the court found that the defendants' knowledge of the plaintiff's predominant motivation to injure defeated the qualified privilege defence. As a result, the court held that the defendants were liable for defamation, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.