Jones v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] NSWSC 1133

Jones v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] NSWSC 1133

The plaintiff could not discontinue the interstate claims because the hearing of the defamation proceedings had begun with the s7A(3) jury trial, so SCR Part 21 Rule 2 precluded leave; in any event, leave would have been refused as a matter of discretion and the proposed amendment deleting "throughout Australia" would impermissibly achieve the same result. The defendants were not granted leave to amend because the proposed s15 truth defence was not supported by particulars capable of proving the substantial truth of the plaintiff's specific AMP imputation, common law truth is excluded in NSW by s15, Polly Peck and the proposed partial justification defence are not available under the NSW...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Hearing of Competing Notices of Motion After a S7 a Jury Finding and Court of Appeal Decision: the Plaintiff Sought Leave to Amend or Discontinue Interstate Claims, and the Defendants Sought Leave to Amend Their Defence.
Outcome
Both notices of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'discontinuance After Commencement of Trial or Hearing' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw) S7 a Procedure' 'truth and Substantial Truth Defences' 'polly Peck Defence' 'partial Justification' 'implied Freedom of Political Communication' 'constitution S92 Interstate Intercourse' 'constitution S117 Discrimination Between Residents of States']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'discontinuance After Commencement of Trial or Hearing' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw) S7 a Procedure' 'truth and Substantial Truth Defences' 'polly Peck Defence' 'partial Justification' 'implied Freedom of Political Communication' 'constitution S92 Interstate Intercourse' 'constitution S117 Discrimination Between Residents of States']

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 / Hearing of Competing Notices of Motion After a S7 a Jury Finding and Court of Appeal Decision: the Plaintiff Sought Leave to Amend or Discontinue Interstate Claims, and the Defendants Sought Leave to Amend Their Defence.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the statement of claim to delete the allegation of publication "throughout Australia" or to discontinue the interstate components of his claim.' "Whether, under SCR Part 21 Rule 2, the trial or hearing of proceedings on the plaintiff's defamation claim had begun by reason of the s7A jury trial." 'Whether the defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence to plead substantial truth under s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' "Whether the defendants' particulars were adequate to support a s15 substantial truth defence to the plaintiff's imputation." 'Whether a common law defence of truth is available in NSW notwithstanding s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).' 'Whether a Polly Peck defence is available in NSW.' 'Whether a defence of partial justification is available in NSW in the form proposed by the defendants.' 'Whether s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) is invalid or restricted by the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters.' 'Whether s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) is invalid by reason of Constitution s92.' 'Whether s15 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) is invalid by reason of Constitution s117.' 'Whether the existence of a single Federal common law makes the Polly Peck defence available in NSW for publications in NSW.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff could not discontinue the interstate claims because the hearing of the defamation proceedings had begun with the s7A(3) jury trial, so SCR Part 21 Rule 2 precluded leave; in any event, leave would have been refused as a matter of discretion and the proposed amendment deleting "throughout Australia" would impermissibly achieve the same result. The defendants were not granted leave to amend because the proposed s15 truth defence was not supported by particulars capable of proving the substantial truth of the plaintiff's specific AMP imputation, common law truth is excluded in NSW by s15, Polly Peck and the proposed partial justification defence are not available under the NSW...

Court Disposition

Both notices of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion is dismissed." "The defendants' notice of motion is dismissed." 'The parties may make submissions as to costs.']