Who is popular today?

Actor to be awarded full $2.9m in damages after judges reject all publisher’s grounds of appeal, including for a retrial, that costs be reduced and that it defamed Rush. Follow the latest updates
1.59am BST
Now on to the costs. Rush was initially awarded $2.9m in damages – an Australian record.
This was a combination of the personal hurt and injury he suffered due to the articles (non-economic damage), the work he lost before the trial due to the articles (past economic loss), and future work he would lose due to the articles (future economic loss), and then interest.
The award of damages in the present case had to take account of the subjective response of Mr Rush to the publications, which left him devastated and distressed and consumed by grief.
The award had to take account of the appellants’ aggravation of the harm that they had caused to Mr Rush. The potency of the imputations was a matter to be taken into account in giving effect to the object of vindication having regard to the worldwide damage that the appellants had caused to Mr Rush’s reputation. In these circumstances, the judge’s assessment of damages for non-economic loss was appropriately high.
1.45am BST
The Daily Telegraph also appealed against the original judge’s decision to exclude the evidence of actor Yael Stone – who alleged Rush had harassed her during a different play.
In the original trial, Justice Wigney had rejected the Telegraph’s application to add Stone’s evidence. He ruled that though the evidence was important to the Telegraph’s case, the lateness of the application to add her and the “delay to the completion of the trial” would unfairly disadvantage Rush.
The judge’s own availability was the more significant ... the appellants’ present submission proceeds on a false premise because, whether or not the appellants were granted leave to adduce Ms Stone’s evidence by video link, the length of the adjournment necessitated by the grant of leave to make the amendments would have been the same.
The judge’s reasons show careful attention to all the matters, pro and con ... Having reviewed the material, we consider that the judge’s decision on the amendment application was, in the circumstances, hardly surprising.” Continue reading...