Fred David & Anor v Youeil Abdishou & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1195

Fred David & Anor v Youeil Abdishou & Ors [2007] NSWSC 1195

The petition was reasonably capable of conveying proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), including imputations of actual knowledge of illegality and professional misconduct, and the challenged terms in those imputations were sufficiently clear in context. Proposed imputation (c) failed as a matter of form because the petition disclosed several substantially different possible kinds of assistance and the imputation did not specify which was meant. Proposed imputation (h) should be struck out because, without identifying the person or authority bringing the insider trading proceedings or stating reasonable grounds for them, it was analogous to an unsupported allegation of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Seventh Defendant's Application to Strike Out Proposed Imputations on Grounds of Capacity and Form; Separate Questions Determined Under R 28.2 After S 7 a Trial Was Vacated
Outcome
The seventh defendant's application was refused as to proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), but proposed imputations (c) and (h) were held liable to be struck out if pleaded.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'notice to Admit']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'notice to Admit']

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 / Seventh Defendant's Application to Strike Out Proposed Imputations on Grounds of Capacity and Form; Separate Questions Determined Under R 28.2 After S 7 a Trial Was Vacated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of and reasonably capable of being defamatory of the plaintiffs.' 'Whether proposed imputation (c) should be struck out for lack of specificity in its use of the word "assisted".' 'Whether proposed imputation (h) was capable of being defamatory where it alleged the first plaintiff was the subject of legal proceedings for insider trading without identifying the person or authority bringing the proceedings or reasonable grounds for them.' 'Whether objections to the form of imputations based on words such as "illegal", "involvement" and "participation" should be upheld.']

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was reasonably capable of conveying proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), including imputations of actual knowledge of illegality and professional misconduct, and the challenged terms in those imputations were sufficiently clear in context. Proposed imputation (c) failed as a matter of form because the petition disclosed several substantially different possible kinds of assistance and the imputation did not specify which was meant. Proposed imputation (h) should be struck out because, without identifying the person or authority bringing the insider trading proceedings or stating reasonable grounds for them, it was analogous to an unsupported allegation of...

Court Disposition

The seventh defendant's application was refused as to proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g), but proposed imputations (c) and (h) were held liable to be struck out if pleaded.

Orders

  • ["The seventh defendant's application to strike out proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) is refused." 'Each of proposed imputations (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) is reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, and is reasonably capable of being defamatory of the plaintiffs.'...