Bass v McDonald & TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No.10)

His Honour : On 2 November 2001 (Transcript 466), I ruled that the plaintiff was confined to publication in the places specified in answers by the defendant to interrogatories, namely Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, plus two other places mentioned in evidence, namely, Canberra and Albury. I said I would give reasons later.

Mr Molomby submitted that it would be open to a jury to infer that if the programme was broadcast as above, it was, more likely than not, also broadcast in other parts of Australia and, in particular, in Hobart and Darwin.

In my view the inference was not open. The contrary was as likely as not the case. The competing possibilities were of equal probability. The jury had no information as to what network arrangements existed or how they operated, or as to the criteria used to decide where to broadcast such a programme, even assuming commercial arrangements made more extensive broadcasting practicable. To find such further publication would have been unjustifiable speculation. -o0o-