DOAN & ANOR v ADVANCED MICRODEVICES & ORS [2003] NSWSC 560

DOAN & ANOR v ADVANCED MICRODEVICES & ORS [2003] NSWSC 560

The republication particulars were deficient and the statement of claim required amendment, but the articles were capable of carrying the pleaded imputations concerning the first plaintiff. Imputations 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c) differed in substance despite similar defamatory impact because they alleged different discreditable acts, while imputation 9(d) required amendment because the plaintiffs conceded that the phrase "involved in" should be made more specific. The plaintiffs succeeded overall.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Notices of Objection and Capacity Questions Concerning the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeeded overall; amended statement of claim ordered and defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
['publication' 'republication' 'particulars' 'imputations of a Corporation' 'capacity' 'difference in Substance' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['publication' 'republication' 'particulars' 'imputations of a Corporation' 'capacity' 'difference in Substance' 'amendment of Pleadings']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Notices of Objection and Capacity Questions Concerning the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of publication and republication against the first and third defendants were sufficient." 'Whether the matters complained of were capable of conveying the pleaded imputations concerning the first plaintiff.' 'Whether imputations 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c) contravened SCR Pt 67 r 11(3) by not differing in substance.' 'Whether the use of the expression "involved in" in imputation 9(d) was impermissibly vague.' 'Whether the statement of claim should be amended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The republication particulars were deficient and the statement of claim required amendment, but the articles were capable of carrying the pleaded imputations concerning the first plaintiff. Imputations 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c) differed in substance despite similar defamatory impact because they alleged different discreditable acts, while imputation 9(d) required amendment because the plaintiffs conceded that the phrase "involved in" should be made more specific. The plaintiffs succeeded overall.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeeded overall; amended statement of claim ordered and defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs within 14 days are to file an amended statement of claim in accordance only with these reasons.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs." "The matter is placed in the Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 11 July 2003."]