Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Pty Limited & Anor [2010] NSWSC 1412

Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Pty Limited & Anor [2010] NSWSC 1412

There were clear triable issues as to both the defence of qualified privilege and the defence of consent. It would be contrary to established principles to dispose of those defences summarily or to strike them out; the matters must go to trial for determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Application to Strike Out Defences / Summary Judgment on Defences, Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to strike out the defences is dismissed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege' 'consent' 'strike Out Application' 'summary Judgment' 'mitigation of Damages']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['qualified Privilege' 'consent' 'strike Out Application' 'summary Judgment' 'mitigation of Damages']

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 Action / Application to Strike Out Defences / Summary Judgment on Defences, Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defences of qualified privilege and consent raised by the defendant should be struck out' 'Whether summary judgment should be granted in favour of the plaintiff on those defences']

Ratio Decidendi

There were clear triable issues as to both the defence of qualified privilege and the defence of consent. It would be contrary to established principles to dispose of those defences summarily or to strike them out; the matters must go to trial for determination.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to strike out the defences is dismissed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed 23 September 2010 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the application."]