Le Mottee v Dingle [2017] NSWSC 635

Le Mottee v Dingle [2017] NSWSC 635

The statement of claim required amendment because several particulars and publication allegations were unclear or inadequate, and some imputations required amendment or would not be pressed; however, several pleaded imputations were capable of being conveyed and could stand. The plaintiffs were therefore granted leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 14 days, without prejudice to further objections.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / First Listing; Objections to Pleadings, Particulars, Imputations and Publication
Outcome
Leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend; proceedings stood over for further first listing.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'identification' 'particulars' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'publication' 'corporate Plaintiff']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'identification' 'particulars' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'publication' 'corporate Plaintiff']

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; Objections to Pleadings, Particulars, Imputations and Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs had provided adequate particulars of identification where the second plaintiff was not named in the matter complained of.' 'Whether additional allegations of publication were adequately particularised.' 'Whether pleaded imputations alleging corruption, want of integrity, impropriety and incompetence were capable of arising from the matter complained of or were defective in form.' 'Whether a company can be the subject of an imputation that it engages in corrupt conduct through its officers.' 'Whether allegations against the second and third defendants concerning forwarding or further distribution of the email were pleaded clearly enough.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim required amendment because several particulars and publication allegations were unclear or inadequate, and some imputations required amendment or would not be pressed; however, several pleaded imputations were capable of being conveyed and could stand. The plaintiffs were therefore granted leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 14 days, without prejudice to further objections.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend; proceedings stood over for further first listing.

Orders

  • ["Leave granted to the plaintiffs to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 14 days, without prejudice to the defendants' right to take any further objection." 'Proceedings stood over to 2 June 2017 for further first listing.']