Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 7) - [2017] VSC 357

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:	19 June 2017
DATE OF RULING:	20 June 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 7)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 357

---

EVIDENCE – Expert Evidence – Relevance – Admissibility – Whether risk of undue waste of time substantially outweighs probative value – Evidence Act 2008, ss 55, 56, 76, 79, 135.

---

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:

The plaintiff, who is an Australian actress and comedian now based in the US, seeks leave to adduce expert evidence by video link from a witness resident in the US, Peter Principato. Prior to the commencement of the trial I indicated that I would not permit the plaintiff to adduce evidence in accordance with a report then filed. Since that time, the plaintiff served a further report of Mr Principato dated 4 May 2017. The defendants contended that Mr Principato’s evidence is inadmissible and, further, that I should refuse leave for his evidence to be taken by video link.

The basis of the defendants’ opposition is twofold. The defendants contended that the report does not come within s 79 of the Evidence Act2008. If the evidence is admissible, the defendants submit that I ought to refuse to admit it because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might result in undue waste of time.

Mr Principato is a Los Angeles-based talent manager. He has a university qualification in communications and, after completing his university degree, worked for six years at The William Morris Agency. That agency is a large and well-known talent agency. In 1997, Mr Principato commenced his own talent agency that merged to become Principato-Young Entertainment in 2000. Mr Principato has been a talent agent for more than 20 years and his agency is said to be one of the top five entertainment and management firms in the United States with offices in Beverly Hills and New York. His report gives further details of his client list and states that his role as a talent manager is to guide careers and negotiate contracts for high-level talent in both feature films and television. Mr Principato is also a producer, having produced numerous film and television productions.

In summary, Mr Principato purports to express three opinions.

(a) Ms Wilson is highly likely to have received, in the next year or two after the release of Pitch Perfect 2, several offers from studios as a lead or co-lead actor.

(b) Ms Wilson would have received compensation on each film in 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.

Continue reading Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 7)

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 7) [2017] VSC 357
Case: [2017] VSC 357
Decision Date: 20 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Wilson v Bauer Media addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in defamation proceedings. The plaintiff, Wilson, sued Bauer Media for defamation, asserting that statements made in an article published by the defendant defamed him. Bauer Media sought to exclude the expert evidence tendered by the plaintiff, contending that it was irrelevant and that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of undue waste of time.

The court was tasked with determining whether the expert evidence provided by the plaintiff was relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act 2008. This involved an assessment of the evidence's probative value against the risk of it causing an undue waste of time, as per sections 55, 56, 76, 79, and 135 of the Act. The court had to decide if the expert's opinions on the impact of the defamation on Wilson's reputation were relevant to the issues in the case and whether the risk of wasting time during the trial outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the issues of defamation and its impact on Wilson's reputation. It concluded that the probative value of the expert's opinions outweighed the risk of wasting time, as the evidence was crucial to establishing the extent of the defamation's impact. Consequently, the court admitted the expert evidence. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the probative value of expert evidence with the potential for it to unduly extend litigation, particularly in defamation cases where reputational harm is a key issue.

The final orders of the court allowed the admission of the expert evidence, enabling the plaintiff to present a more comprehensive case regarding the impact of the defamatory statements on his reputation. The court scheduled a trial date to proceed with the remaining issues in the defamation claim.

Orders