Wagner v Nine Network Australia

The matter in Wagner v Nine Network Australia involved a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The only issue for the jury was whether the broadcast conveyed the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff. Both parties proposed competing trial plans, with the plaintiffs suggesting that the jury be present for all the evidence in their case and the defendants proposing that the jury be present for only a directed opening, the playing of the broadcast, and the parties' submissions about whether or not the pleaded imputations were conveyed.

The court was required to decide which trial plan should be adopted, considering the risk of the jury being distracted by irrelevant evidence and the efficiency of the trial. The court determined that the preferable course was for the jury to not hear irrelevant evidence, rather than hear irrelevant evidence and then be directed in the summing up to disregard it. The court favoured the defendants' trial plan, as it simplified and expedited the jury's determination and avoided the jury having to hear evidence that was irrelevant and distracting.

The court directed that the parties prepare an agreed statement to be read to the jury at the start of the trial and that the parties confer about the way in which the evidence, particularly the broadcast and the internet publication, is prepared for presentation to the jury. The jury trial was to proceed generally in accordance with the defendants' trial plan.