Cao v Horan [2018] NSWDC 295

Cao v Horan [2018] NSWDC 295

The application failed because the challenge was to causation rather than specificity: the pleaded special damages were clear, concise and precisely costed, and the asserted causal relationship between the publications, the pharmacy business reputation, the failed or reduced sale price, and the revenue downturn raised disputed factual issues unsuitable for summary strike out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / First Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Particulars of Special Damages and the Andrews Claim
Outcome
First defendant's application dismissed; costs ordered for plaintiffs; procedural directions made.
Legal Topics
['particularisation of Special Damages' 'strike Out Application' 'andrews Damages' 'causation of Economic Loss' 'expert Evidence']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['particularisation of Special Damages' 'strike Out Application' 'andrews Damages' 'causation of Economic Loss' 'expert Evidence']

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 Proceedings / First Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Particulars of Special Damages and the Andrews Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the particulars of special damages in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim should be struck out under r 14.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the pleading sufficiently particularised the causal connection between the matters complained of and the alleged diminution in business value and downturn in revenue.' 'Whether the Andrews claim should be struck out.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the challenge was to causation rather than specificity: the pleaded special damages were clear, concise and precisely costed, and the asserted causal relationship between the publications, the pharmacy business reputation, the failed or reduced sale price, and the revenue downturn raised disputed factual issues unsuitable for summary strike out.

Court Disposition

First defendant's application dismissed; costs ordered for plaintiffs; procedural directions made.

Orders

  • ["First defendant's application to strike out the particulars of special damages and the Andrews claim is dismissed." "First defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs of the application." 'Gibson DCJ to provide reasons for decision on a later date.' 'First defendant granted leave to file and serve an Amended Defence on or...