Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 2) - [2017] VSC 303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2016 01842

REBEL MELANIE ELIZABETH WILSON	Plaintiff
v
BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 May 2017
DATE OF RULING:	25 May 2017 (Revised 30 May 2017)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 303

---

EVIDENCE — Expert evidence — Admissibility of expert evidence — Relevance —Defendants’ characterisation of plaintiff’s evidence not open to the jury — Leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr M Collins QC, with Ms R Enbom and Mr J C Hooper	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Defendant	Ms G Schoff QC, with Mr S Mukerjea	Johnson Winter & Slattery

HIS HONOUR:

At the completion of the plaintiff’s evidence in chief, the defendants renewed an application to rely on the expert evidence of Ms Carole Riley, a genealogist whose opinion apparently is that the plaintiff is not related to Walt Disney’s wife, Lillian.

Last Friday, before the trial commenced, I refused the defendants’ application to further amend their defence in respect of the Walt Disney statement.[1] The issue was whether or not the plaintiff lied when she said to journalist Caroline Overington that she was distantly related to Walt Disney by marriage through his wife being her great aunt. The issue only arose in relation to one article, referred to in the plaintiff's statement of claim as the first Women’s Weekly online article, which contained the paragraph:

Rebel told The Weekly that she was distantly related to Walt Disney through Walt's wife, Lillian, who was Lillian Bownds, also spelt Lillian Bounds. She described being a member of Disney's exclusive club, able to go places where other guests can't go and visit when Disneyland isn't even open. As part of the process of checking, I spoke to Disneyland about that club. They confirmed its existence and the special privileges, early entry and so on, but said membership lists were private.

[1]Rebel Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 1) [2017] VSC 302.

The opening reference to telling The Weekly that information relates to an earlier interview between Ms Overington and the plaintiff resulting in an article published in Women's Weekly in February 2015 (the earlier article). The earlier article is not impugned in the proceedings. In the article that is alleged to be defamatory, Ms Overington explores the proposition that if the plaintiff did tell lies, then she was one of the people to whom she had lied.

The particular issue of whether the information provided to Ms Overington in that earlier interview, which I have referred to as the Disney statement, was false is not raised on the pleadings as an issue in the trial. So much is clear from my first ruling when I refused the defendants’ application to further amend their defence and for leave to rely on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] VSC 303
Decision Date: 25 May 2017 (Revised 30 May 2017)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wilson v Bauer Media, the plaintiff sought to hold the defendants accountable for defamatory statements published in their media publications. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of expert evidence presented by the plaintiff and assessing the overall impact of the publications on the plaintiff's reputation. The central issue revolved around the relevance and admissibility of expert evidence, as well as whether the defendants' characterisation of the plaintiff's evidence should be presented to the jury for consideration.

The court had to address whether the expert evidence provided by the plaintiff was relevant and reliable, and if it was appropriate to exclude the defendants' characterisation of the evidence from the jury's deliberation. The plaintiff's expert evidence was crucial to establishing the impact of the publications on the plaintiff's reputation and mental health. The court needed to decide if the defendants' proposed characterisation of this evidence was an accurate representation and if it should be left to the jury to determine its credibility.

The court ruled that the expert evidence provided by the plaintiff was both relevant and reliable, and therefore, admissible. The court also found that the defendants' characterisation of the plaintiff's evidence did not provide an accurate representation and was not open to the jury. Consequently, the court held that the defendants' proposed characterisation should not be presented to the jury, and the plaintiff's evidence should stand without such interpretation. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the evidence and its relevance to the defamation claim.

The court's ruling resulted in the plaintiff's expert evidence being admitted and the defendants' characterisation being excluded from the jury's consideration. The court's decision on the admissibility of the expert evidence was pivotal in determining the credibility of the plaintiff's claims regarding the impact of the defamatory publications. Ultimately, this case highlights the importance of properly assessing and characterising expert evidence in defamation cases, and the court's role in ensuring that the jury is presented with accurate and relevant information.

Orders