Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Born Brands Pty Ltd brought an action against Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd in relation to allegedly defamatory comments made by persons in a television broadcast. The plaintiffs argued that the broadcast contained defamatory material that harmed their reputation and sales. The defendants denied liability for defamation, asserting that the comments were made by individuals who were not identified in the broadcast and therefore could not be attributed to the defendants. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to identify the individuals who made the adverse comments and whether it could be inferred that these individuals had viewed the broadcast that contained the alleged defamatory material.

The court considered the principles of defamation law, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had established a causal link between the broadcast and the alleged harm to their reputation. The court examined the evidence provided by the plaintiffs to identify the individuals who made the comments and whether these individuals had viewed the broadcast. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided any evidence to establish the identity of the individuals who made the comments, and therefore, the court could not draw an inference that these individuals had viewed the broadcast. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a causal link between the broadcast and the alleged harm to their reputation and dismissed the action.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the action brought by Born Brands Pty Ltd against Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to identify the individuals who made the adverse comments about the plaintiffs' product, and therefore, the court could not draw an inference that these individuals had viewed the broadcast that contained the matter complained of. The court held that the plaintiffs had not established a causal link between the broadcast and the alleged harm to their reputation. The court dismissed the action with costs.