Kaplan & Anor v Go Daddy Group Inc & Ors [2006] NSWSC 250

Kaplan & Anor v Go Daddy Group Inc & Ors [2006] NSWSC 250

The amended statement of claim was not struck out because the general requirement to plead the whole publication is not absolute, the missing website material did not justify locking the plaintiffs out of their claims, and fairness to the second defendant could be addressed by less drastic means such as jury directions if the evidence permitted. The challenged imputations were capable of defaming the first plaintiff or were not bad in form.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out amended statement of claim refused.
Legal Topics
['internet Publication' 'injurious Falsehood' 'pleading the Whole Publication' 'strike Out Application' 'capacity of Imputations to Defame' 'form of Imputations']
['defamation' 'tort' 'civil Procedure'] ['internet Publication' 'injurious Falsehood' 'pleading the Whole Publication' 'strike Out Application' 'capacity of Imputations to Defame' 'form of Imputations']

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 and Injurious Falsehood / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out because the plaintiffs did not plead the whole of the internet publication in which the matter complained of appeared.' 'Whether missing material from the deactivated website required the plaintiffs to be prevented from pursuing their claims.' 'Whether imputations (b), (d) and (e) were capable of defaming the first plaintiff or were bad in form.' 'Whether criticisms of the injurious falsehood claim required resolution on the strike out application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim was not struck out because the general requirement to plead the whole publication is not absolute, the missing website material did not justify locking the plaintiffs out of their claims, and fairness to the second defendant could be addressed by less drastic means such as jury directions if the evidence permitted. The challenged imputations were capable of defaming the first plaintiff or were not bad in form.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out amended statement of claim refused.

Orders

  • ['I decline to make any orders with respect to the amended statement of claim.']