Lee v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2015] NSWDC 142

Lee v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2015] NSWDC 142

The contextual imputations were not struck out because being a 'person of interest' in the investigation of the murder of Joo Won Choi was different in substance from being reasonably suspected by police of having committed that murder, and contextual imputations (1) and (2) also differed from each other because one concerned actual police treatment as a person of interest while the other required proof that the plaintiff's conduct warranted such investigation. Contextual imputation (3) differed from an imputation that the plaintiff was being investigated for fraud because it required proof that his conduct warranted investigation. However, the existing particulars of justification were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Application to Strike Out Contextual Imputations and Adequacy of Particulars
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to file an Amended Defence with additional particulars; time extended for the plaintiff to answer particulars of the Reply; plaintiff granted leave to administer fresh interrogatories; matter listed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['contextual Imputations' 'justification' 'particulars of Justification' 'strike Out Application' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'interrogatories']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Imputations' 'justification' 'particulars of Justification' 'strike Out Application' 'leave to Amend Defence' 'interrogatories']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Plaintiff's Application to Strike Out Contextual Imputations and Adequacy of Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether contextual imputations (1) and (2) differed in substance from each other.' "Whether contextual imputations (1) and (2) differed in substance or kind from the plaintiff's imputations 3(f) and 5(f)." "Whether contextual imputation (3) differed in substance or kind from the plaintiff's imputations 3(i) and 5(i)." "Whether the contextual imputations were carried in addition to the totality of the plaintiff's imputations." "Whether the defendants' particulars of justification were adequate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The contextual imputations were not struck out because being a 'person of interest' in the investigation of the murder of Joo Won Choi was different in substance from being reasonably suspected by police of having committed that murder, and contextual imputations (1) and (2) also differed from each other because one concerned actual police treatment as a person of interest while the other required proof that the plaintiff's conduct warranted such investigation. Contextual imputation (3) differed from an imputation that the plaintiff was being investigated for fraud because it required proof that his conduct warranted investigation. However, the existing particulars of justification were...

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to file an Amended Defence with additional particulars; time extended for the plaintiff to answer particulars of the Reply; plaintiff granted leave to administer fresh interrogatories; matter listed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the defendants to file an Amended Defence by 17 June 2015 including additional particulars of justification and amending contextual imputations to read: "(1) The Plaintiff was a person of interest in the investigation of the murder of Joo Won Choi. (2) The Plaintiff had so conducted himself as to...