Cha v Oh (No. 22) (Part 2) [2009] NSWDC 300

Cha v Oh (No. 22) (Part 2) [2009] NSWDC 300

The court found the pleaded imputations to be capable of being conveyed and defamatory, with judgment for the plaintiff against the second, fourth, and fifth defendants for multiple instances of publication, and awarded damages corresponding to each publication. Applications resolved various interlocutory, procedural, and cost issues. The second defendant is granted leave to amend his defence; late amendment for fourth defendant permitted. Orders for indemnity costs for improper conduct. Principally, in defamation, republication is actionable irrespective of adoption or endorsement unless context shows otherwise; pleadings must be precise, and justice and fairness override case management...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Post Trial; Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff for a total sum of $240,000 against each of the second, fourth and fifth defendants for specified publications. Leave granted to second defendant to amend defence. Second and fourth defendants to pay plaintiff's costs (with liberty to apply). Plaintiff granted leave to replead some...
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'qualified Privilege' 'justification' 'case Management' 'bias and Disqualification' 'costs' 'truth' 'imputations' 'cross Claims' 'aggravated Damages' 'civil Procedure']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['defamation' 'qualified Privilege' 'justification' 'case Management' 'bias and Disqualification' 'costs' 'truth' 'imputations' 'cross Claims' 'aggravated Damages' 'civil Procedure']

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

Civil Defamation / Post Trial; Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants published and conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff' 'Capacity and form of pleaded imputations' 'Justification and truth of factual allegations' 'Qualified privilege' 'Proper management and accounting of charitable committee funds' 'Procedural fairness and bias' 'Particularisation of justification and pleadings' 'Withdrawal of admissions' 'Case management and adjournments' 'Costs and indemnity costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the pleaded imputations to be capable of being conveyed and defamatory, with judgment for the plaintiff against the second, fourth, and fifth defendants for multiple instances of publication, and awarded damages corresponding to each publication. Applications resolved various interlocutory, procedural, and cost issues. The second defendant is granted leave to amend his defence; late amendment for fourth defendant permitted. Orders for indemnity costs for improper conduct. Principally, in defamation, republication is actionable irrespective of adoption or endorsement unless context shows otherwise; pleadings must be precise, and justice and fairness override case management...

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff for a total sum of $240,000 against each of the second, fourth and fifth defendants for specified publications. Leave granted to second defendant to amend defence. Second and fourth defendants to pay plaintiff's costs (with liberty to apply). Plaintiff granted leave to replead some...

Orders

  • ['Judgment for plaintiff for $240,000 against second, fourth and fifth defendants for specified publications; with breakdown by publication date and sum.' 'Second defendant granted leave to amend defence per paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 13 of proposed Further Amended Defence.' "Second and fourth defendants to pay...