Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 12]

In Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages for defamation, copyright infringement and passing off. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. After the trial, the plaintiff provided a Facebook post to the court which was not available at the time of the trial. The plaintiff sought to reopen the proceedings in order to cross-examine the defendant on the Facebook post. The defendant opposed the application on the basis that the Facebook post did not meet the requirements for reopening the proceedings.

The court considered the applicable principles for reopening proceedings and whether the plaintiff had established a case warranting reopening. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that the Facebook post contained new evidence that was significant and material to the proceedings. The court also found that the plaintiff had not shown that the Facebook post contained evidence that was not available at the time of the trial. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the interests of justice required the reopening of the proceedings.

The court further considered whether the plaintiff had shown that the Facebook post contained evidence that was relevant to the proceedings and whether the defendant had been given an opportunity to respond to the evidence. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that the Facebook post contained evidence that was relevant to the proceedings. The court also found that the defendant had not been given an opportunity to respond to the evidence because the Facebook post was not available at the time of the trial. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the Facebook post contained evidence that was significant and material to the proceedings.

The court dismissed the application to reopen the proceedings. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the application on an indemnity basis. The court held that the plaintiff had not shown that the Facebook post contained evidence that was significant and material to the proceedings and that the defendant had not been given an opportunity to respond to the evidence. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the interests of justice required the reopening of the proceedings.