Sakr v Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Sakr [2015] NSWCA 310

Sakr v Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Sakr [2015] NSWCA 310

Imputation 4(a) as initially pleaded was not capable of arising from the matter complained of, as it did not convey that Ms Sakr supported the brutality of the Assad regime; the inclusion of 'willingly' in the re-pleaded 4(a) was apt to cause confusion and should be struck out; the primary judge did not err in permitting 4(b) and 4(c) to go forward but they required amendment for clarity; leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted due to confusion as to the effect of the prior judgments, but respective appeals otherwise dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Applications for Leave to Appeal/cross Appeal and Appeals Regarding Striking Out and Form of Pleaded Imputations in Defamation Proceedings
Outcome
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; appeals and cross-appeals otherwise dismissed; some amendments to pleadings directed; costs awarded to ABC.
Legal Topics
['capacity of Publication to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'form and Precision of Imputations' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Rulings' 'costs Orders']
['defamation'] ['capacity of Publication to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'form and Precision of Imputations' 'leave to Appeal Interlocutory Rulings' 'costs Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Applications for Leave to Appeal/cross Appeal and Appeals Regarding Striking Out and Form of Pleaded Imputations in Defamation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations pleaded by Ms Sakr were capable of arising from the matter complained of' 'Whether imputation 4(a) (supporter of the brutality of the Assad regime) could arise' "Whether use of 'willingly' in imputation 4(a) as re-pleaded was permissible" 'Whether primary judge erred in not striking out imputations 4(b) and 4(c)' 'Whether leave to appeal/cross-appeal discretionary interlocutory rulings should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation 4(a) as initially pleaded was not capable of arising from the matter complained of, as it did not convey that Ms Sakr supported the brutality of the Assad regime; the inclusion of 'willingly' in the re-pleaded 4(a) was apt to cause confusion and should be struck out; the primary judge did not err in permitting 4(b) and 4(c) to go forward but they required amendment for clarity; leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted due to confusion as to the effect of the prior judgments, but respective appeals otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; appeals and cross-appeals otherwise dismissed; some amendments to pleadings directed; costs awarded to ABC.

Orders

  • ["Extend to 7 May 2015 the time for the filing of Ms Sakr's summons for leave to appeal from the primary judge's decision to strike out imputation 4(a), grant leave and dismiss the appeal." 'Grant ABC leave to cross-appeal from the decision not to strike out imputations 4(b) and (c) in the initial statement of claim...