Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.4)

The parties involved in this case were Bass, the plaintiff, against McDonald, the defendant, and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, a television broadcasting company. The dispute arose from defamatory statements made about Bass on a television program broadcast by TCN Channel Nine. Bass sought damages for defamation, which McDonald and TCN Channel Nine denied by asserting the defence of unlikelihood of harm. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the defamatory statements made about Bass on the television program were likely to cause harm to his reputation. The court had to determine if the defence of unlikelihood of harm was applicable in this case. This defence hinges on whether the publication of the defamatory material was so unlikely to cause harm to the plaintiff's reputation that it would be unjust to hold the defendant liable for defamation.

The court concluded that the defence of unlikelihood of harm was not available to McDonald and TCN Channel Nine. The defamatory statements made about Bass were found to be serious and likely to cause harm to his reputation. The court emphasised that the defence of unlikelihood of harm is a difficult one to establish and requires clear evidence that the harm is highly improbable. In this case, the court found that the defamatory statements were of a nature that would be likely to cause harm to Bass's reputation. Consequently, the defence of unlikelihood of harm was not successful.

The court ordered that McDonald and TCN Channel Nine were liable for defamation and instructed them to pay damages to Bass. The exact amount of damages was not specified in the summary provided. The court's decision underscored the importance of the likelihood of harm in defamation cases and reinforced that the defence of unlikelihood of harm is not easily established.