Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.7)

In the case of Bass v McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.7), the plaintiff sought damages for defamation against the defendants, McDonald and TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd. The defamation arose from a television broadcast where a third party, Mr McDonald, made derogatory comments about the plaintiff, Bass. The dispute centered around the applicability of the defence of "Qualified Privilege with Excuse" under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) and the Defamation Act 2005 (Tas). The court had to determine if the defence could be invoked in the context of a riposte published by a third party and whether the absence of "good faith" was a permissible reply.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defence of Qualified Privilege with Excuse could be claimed by the defendants when the defamatory content originated from a third party, specifically Mr McDonald. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the absence of "good faith" on the part of the third party could be considered as a reply in the context of this defence. This necessitated an analysis of the statutory requirements for invoking the defence and the interpretation of "good faith" in this context.

The court found that the defence of Qualified Privilege with Excuse could indeed be claimed by the defendants in this scenario. The court held that the absence of "good faith" by the third party, Mr McDonald, could be considered as a reply in the context of this defence. The court reasoned that the defence was available to the defendants because the publication was made under circumstances where there was a duty to communicate the information to the public, and the defendants had a reasonable belief that the information was true. Furthermore, the court determined that the absence of "good faith" by Mr McDonald was a relevant consideration that could be factored into the overall assessment of the defence.

The court's decision allowed the defendants to rely on the defence of Qualified Privilege with Excuse. Consequently, the plaintiff's defamation claim was dismissed. The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by way of damages or costs in relation to the defamation claim.