Zeccola v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 227

Zeccola v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 227

The repeated particulars of truth did not of themselves establish that the contextual truth defences must fail, and alternative contextual imputations and alternative Hore-Lacy reliance were not impermissible. However, contextual imputations alleging that the plaintiffs permitted Palace Films to default on payment obligations did not differ in substance from the plaintiffs' imputations about dishonouring distribution commitments and were not other imputations for s 26. The imputations that the second plaintiff acted wrongfully in permitting Palace Films to trade while insolvent were capable of being conveyed, but the alternative reasonable-suspicion imputations were incapable because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Contextual Imputations in the Defendants' Defences
Outcome
Application allowed in part; specified contextual imputations struck out and other objections rejected.
Legal Topics
['contextual Truth' 'truth Defence' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'capacity of Imputations' 'suspicion Imputations' 'hore Lacy Meanings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Truth' 'truth Defence' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'capacity of Imputations' 'suspicion Imputations' 'hore Lacy Meanings']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Contextual Imputations in the Defendants' Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether contextual truth defences were liable to be struck out because the defendants repeated particulars of truth and provided no separate particulars for contextual imputations.' "Whether contextual imputations that alleged default on payment obligations were other imputations capable of arising in addition to the plaintiffs' imputations for the purposes of s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005." 'Whether alternative contextual imputations may be pleaded.' 'Whether imputations that the second plaintiff permitted Palace Films to trade while insolvent, or that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he did so, were capable of being conveyed.' 'Whether contextual imputations could alternatively be pleaded as Hore-Lacy meanings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The repeated particulars of truth did not of themselves establish that the contextual truth defences must fail, and alternative contextual imputations and alternative Hore-Lacy reliance were not impermissible. However, contextual imputations alleging that the plaintiffs permitted Palace Films to default on payment obligations did not differ in substance from the plaintiffs' imputations about dishonouring distribution commitments and were not other imputations for s 26. The imputations that the second plaintiff acted wrongfully in permitting Palace Films to trade while insolvent were capable of being conveyed, but the alternative reasonable-suspicion imputations were incapable because the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; specified contextual imputations struck out and other objections rejected.

Orders

  • ['Contextual imputations 19(a)(i), (iv)(b) and (v); 27(a)(i), (iv)(b) and (v) and 35(a)(i), (iv)(b) and (v) in the defence filed by the first, second and third defendants be struck out.' 'Contextual imputations 9(a)(i), (iv)(b) and (v) in the defence filed by the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants be struck out.']