Mundine v Brown (No 2)

Mundine v Brown (No 2) involved Anthony Mundine, a professional boxer, suing two respondents, Tony Brown and the publisher of the newspaper in which Brown’s article appeared, over defamatory statements in an article published by Brown. The nature of the dispute was whether the article defamed Mundine and, if so, whether the defence of qualified privilege applied. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues the court needed to address included the admissibility of evidence regarding the motives of the author of the article and whether the article was defamatory. The court was required to decide whether the objection to a question seeking the opinion of a third party about the author’s motives was justified on the grounds of hearsay and relevance.

The court found that the objection to the question was valid. The court noted that the question sought to elicit the opinion of a third party about the author’s motives for writing the article, which was not limited to the third party’s understanding of what the article may have been thought to convey on its face or by its terms. The court held that such a question was likely to be hearsay and not relevant to the issue of whether the article was defamatory. The court further held that the question was not limited to the third party’s understanding of what the article may have been thought to convey on its face or by its terms, and therefore, the question was not admissible. The court also noted that the evidence of the third party’s opinion was not relevant to the issue of whether the article was defamatory, as the defence of qualified privilege was not available to the respondents.

The court did not reach a decision on the issue of whether the article was defamatory or whether the defence of qualified privilege applied, as the objection to the question was upheld. The court did not make any final orders in the case.