JAMES v FADDOUL [2008] NSWSC 176

JAMES v FADDOUL [2008] NSWSC 176

The challenged pleadings were not scandalous because, although degrading and concerning the first plaintiff's moral character, they were relevant to the pleaded imputations, contextual imputations, defences of truth and contextual truth, and the breach of confidence and injurious falsehood claims. The contextual imputations were capable of arising from the emails and attached images. The additional laptop material was arguably relevant to confidentiality and truth, and reliance on it did not breach earlier orders or constitute oppression or abuse of process. Accordingly, the strike-out motion failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Defamation, Breach of Confidence and Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion to Strike Out Parts of the Defences Under UCPR 4.15 and on Grounds Including Incapacity, Irrelevance, Oppression and Abuse of Process
Outcome
The Motion is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'scandalous Pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'defence of Truth' 'breach of Confidence' 'injurious Falsehood' 'abuse of Process']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'equity' 'torts'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'scandalous Pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'defence of Truth' 'breach of Confidence' 'injurious Falsehood' 'abuse of Process']

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, Breach of Confidence and Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion to Strike Out Parts of the Defences Under UCPR 4.15 and on Grounds Including Incapacity, Irrelevance, Oppression and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the challenged parts of the Defences were scandalous within the meaning of UCPR 4.15.' 'Whether the contextual imputations that the first plaintiff is a woman who would allow herself to be photographed in pornographic poses and is a sexual exhibitionist were capable of arising from the published material.' 'Whether particulars concerning other images and data on the laptop were relevant to the breach of confidence claim and the defences of truth and contextual truth.' 'Whether reliance on additional material from the laptop was oppressive or an abuse of process because of earlier court orders or correspondence.' 'Whether the defendants could plead truth in answer to the injurious falsehood claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged pleadings were not scandalous because, although degrading and concerning the first plaintiff's moral character, they were relevant to the pleaded imputations, contextual imputations, defences of truth and contextual truth, and the breach of confidence and injurious falsehood claims. The contextual imputations were capable of arising from the emails and attached images. The additional laptop material was arguably relevant to confidentiality and truth, and reliance on it did not breach earlier orders or constitute oppression or abuse of process. Accordingly, the strike-out motion failed.

Court Disposition

The Motion is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Motion is dismissed with costs.']