Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 830

Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 830

Leave to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendment did not plead with sufficient specificity the words or conduct by Dr Cumpston alleged to constitute the injurious falsehood and allowing amendment on the basis of anticipated discovery and interrogatories was not warranted in light of prior delay and unfairness to the defendant. The originating claim was also untenable as it failed to properly attribute actionable conduct to Dr Cumpston, justifying dismissal of proceedings as against him.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Edmund Thomas Gregory Bateman; Second Plaintiff: Idameneo (No 123) Pty Limited; First Defendant: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Natasha Wallace; Fourth Defendant: Vanda Carson; Fifth Defendant: Jeremy Cumpston
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Application to Amend Statement of Claim and Strike Out Application Against Fifth Defendant
Outcome
Proceedings as against fifth defendant dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Pleadings, Dismissal of Proceedings
Common Law Injurious Falsehood Pleading Requirements Amendment of Pleadings Dismissal of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund Thomas Gregory Bateman

First Plaintiff

Idameneo (No 123) Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited

First Defendant

Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Natasha Wallace

Third Defendant

Vanda Carson

Fourth Defendant

Jeremy Cumpston

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Application to Amend Statement of Claim and Strike Out Application Against Fifth Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the claim against the fifth defendant to plead injurious falsehood;
  2. 2 Whether the amended pleading identifies a viable cause of action;
  3. 3 Whether the originating claim as pleaded can be maintained against the fifth defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the statement of claim was refused because the proposed amendment did not plead with sufficient specificity the words or conduct by Dr Cumpston alleged to constitute the injurious falsehood and allowing amendment on the basis of anticipated discovery and interrogatories was not warranted in light of prior delay and unfairness to the defendant. The originating claim was also untenable as it failed to properly attribute actionable conduct to Dr Cumpston, justifying dismissal of proceedings as against him.

Court Disposition

Proceedings as against fifth defendant dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim be refused
  • The originating claim as against Dr Cumpston be struck out