Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd [2008] NSWCA 300

Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd [2008] NSWCA 300

The appeal failed because there was no evidence that Statewide Roads Ltd published, knew of, approved, or accepted responsibility for the report, and the evidence did not establish partnership, agency, vicarious liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil between it and Statewide Roads Technical Management Ltd. Imputation 13(f) was not conveyed because the matter complained of did not assert that the appellant claimed numerous engineering qualifications or long postgraduate experience, and the appellant was not denied procedural fairness. The cross-appeal failed because imputations 13(b) and 13(c) were conveyed by the matter complained of, and imputations 13(c) and 13(e), read in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted, appeal dismissed, cross-appeal dismissed, and the primary judge's orders set aside and replaced to correct the form of orders.
Legal Topics
['publication of Defamatory Matter' 'defamatory Imputations' 'parent Company and Wholly Owned Subsidiary' 'partnership' 'agency' 'vicarious Liability' 'lifting the Corporate Veil' 'procedural Fairness for Self Represented Litigant' 's 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Hearing']
['defamation' 'corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['publication of Defamatory Matter' 'defamatory Imputations' 'parent Company and Wholly Owned Subsidiary' 'partnership' 'agency' 'vicarious Liability' 'lifting the Corporate Veil' 'procedural Fairness for Self Represented Litigant' 's 7 a Defamation Act 1974 (nsw) Hearing']

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 Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent published the matter complained of or was liable for publication by Statewide Roads Technical Management Ltd.' 'Whether the relationship between the first respondent and Statewide Roads Technical Management Ltd was one of partnership, agency, vicarious liability, or justified lifting the corporate veil.' 'Whether imputation 13(f) was conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness as a self-represented litigant.' 'Whether imputations 13(b) and 13(c) were conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations 13(c) and 13(e) were defamatory of the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because there was no evidence that Statewide Roads Ltd published, knew of, approved, or accepted responsibility for the report, and the evidence did not establish partnership, agency, vicarious liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil between it and Statewide Roads Technical Management Ltd. Imputation 13(f) was not conveyed because the matter complained of did not assert that the appellant claimed numerous engineering qualifications or long postgraduate experience, and the appellant was not denied procedural fairness. The cross-appeal failed because imputations 13(b) and 13(c) were conveyed by the matter complained of, and imputations 13(c) and 13(e), read in...

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted, appeal dismissed, cross-appeal dismissed, and the primary judge's orders set aside and replaced to correct the form of orders.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for the filing by the appellant of his summons for leave to appeal up to and including 13 March 2008.' 'Grant the appellant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' "The appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Grant the cross-appellants leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the cross-appeal.'...