Junus v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd;; Junus v Sing Tao Newspapers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1735

Junus v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd;; Junus v Sing Tao Newspapers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1735

Imputations (a) and (b) were struck out because they were imprecise: imputation (a) did not identify when the plaintiff allegedly acquired knowledge of the source of funds, and imputation (b) did not identify what the alleged collusion involved. Imputations (e), (f) and (g) were struck out because, as presently formulated, they were incapable of being defamatory, and imputation (f) was also imprecise. Imputations (c) and (d) were not struck out because the sting that the plaintiff secured a prestigious performance opportunity through her father's payment rather than her own merit could be defamatory and did not need to be pleaded as a true innuendo, although the plaintiff would need to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / First Listing in the Defamation List; Objections to the Form of the Pleading
Outcome
In each proceeding, imputations (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) were struck out with leave to replead; imputations (c) and (d) were not struck out.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'whether Imputations Are Reasonably Capable of Being Conveyed' 'whether Imputations Are Capable of Being Defamatory' 'precision in Pleading']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'whether Imputations Are Reasonably Capable of Being Conveyed' 'whether Imputations Are Capable of Being Defamatory' 'precision in Pleading']

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 / First Listing in the Defamation List; Objections to the Form of the Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (a), that the plaintiff knew her father had paid for her violin and the orchestra with money gained from illegal activities, was imprecise because it did not identify when the plaintiff acquired the alleged knowledge.' 'Whether imputation (b), that the plaintiff knowingly colludes with an allegedly criminal person, was imprecise because it did not identify the alleged collusion.' 'Whether imputations (c) and (d) differed in substance and whether the pleaded sting required a true innuendo or was incapable of being defamatory.' "Whether imputations (e), (f) and (g), concerning the merit, authenticity and professional status of the plaintiff's musicianship, were capable of being defamatory." 'In the Fairfax proceeding, whether the article was capable of conveying imputation (a).']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (a) and (b) were struck out because they were imprecise: imputation (a) did not identify when the plaintiff allegedly acquired knowledge of the source of funds, and imputation (b) did not identify what the alleged collusion involved. Imputations (e), (f) and (g) were struck out because, as presently formulated, they were incapable of being defamatory, and imputation (f) was also imprecise. Imputations (c) and (d) were not struck out because the sting that the plaintiff secured a prestigious performance opportunity through her father's payment rather than her own merit could be defamatory and did not need to be pleaded as a true innuendo, although the plaintiff would need to...

Court Disposition

In each proceeding, imputations (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) were struck out with leave to replead; imputations (c) and (d) were not struck out.

Orders

  • ['In each proceeding, imputations (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) are struck out with leave to replead.' 'Costs are reserved until the next occasion.' 'Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file any amended statement of claim on or before 23 November.' 'Both matters are adjourned to 30 November 2018.']