Robert (Robbie) Waterhouse v The Age Company Ltd; Robert (Robbie) Waterhouse v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Robert (Robbie) Waterhouse v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd

The proceedings were brought by Robbie Waterhouse, a former professional Australian Rules footballer, against three defendants who are publishers of various media outlets, including the newspaper The Age. The dispute centred on allegations of defamation arising from published articles that insinuated Waterhouse was involved in serious criminal activities and dishonesty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Waterhouse sought to have the defamation trial decided by a jury of 12 rather than the standard six jurors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defamation trial should proceed before a jury of 12, considering Waterhouse's status as a prominent individual and the gravity of the allegations against him. The court had to consider the relevant criteria and factors outlined in previous case law to determine if the exceptional circumstances warranted a jury of 12. The defendants argued that a jury of six would be sufficient and that the allegations did not reach the threshold of exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant a larger jury.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, concluded that the nature of the allegations and Waterhouse's prominence warranted a jury of 12 to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The gravity of the allegations, including serious criminality and dishonesty, combined with Waterhouse's public profile, justified the use of a larger jury to properly assess the credibility of the evidence and the implications of the allegations. The court found that the exceptional circumstances test was satisfied, and thus, the trial should proceed before a jury of 12.

The court ordered that the defamation trial against the three defendants proceed before a jury of 12 members, acknowledging the significant implications of the allegations and Waterhouse's public status. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring a fair trial in cases involving prominent individuals and serious accusations.