Woelfl v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2014] NSWSC 1943

Woelfl v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2014] NSWSC 1943

Leave to amend was allowed because, although the application was made very late, it was preferable for the contextual imputations to be properly pleaded rather than to reject a sensible application solely on timing grounds. The proposed imputations were, subject to clarification of ambiguity in the first four and later consideration of the s 26 requirement, reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, and any question whether they were “other” imputations arising “in addition to” the plaintiffs' imputations could more practicably be determined after the jury's findings on the plaintiffs' imputations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Arising Out of the Broadcast of Two Items on ABC Television in 2011 and 2012 / Application on the First Day of a Jury Hearing for Leave to Amend the Defence by Re Pleading Contextual Imputations Relied Upon Under S 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Application to amend contextual imputations allowed, subject to the qualification as to whether the imputations meet the requirements of s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['contextual Truth' 'contextual Imputations' 'amendment of Defence' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise From Matter Complained Of']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Truth' 'contextual Imputations' 'amendment of Defence' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise From Matter Complained Of']

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 Arising Out of the Broadcast of Two Items on ABC Television in 2011 and 2012 / Application on the First Day of a Jury Hearing for Leave to Amend the Defence by Re Pleading Contextual Imputations Relied Upon Under S 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should have leave, on the first day of hearing, to amend its defence to re-plead contextual imputations relied upon for a defence under s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the proposed contextual imputations were ambiguous or reasonably capable of arising from the matter complained of.' "Whether questions about the requirement that contextual imputations be “other” imputations arising “in addition to” the plaintiffs' imputations should be determined immediately or after the jury's findings." 'Whether the lateness of the amendment application caused prejudice sufficient to refuse leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was allowed because, although the application was made very late, it was preferable for the contextual imputations to be properly pleaded rather than to reject a sensible application solely on timing grounds. The proposed imputations were, subject to clarification of ambiguity in the first four and later consideration of the s 26 requirement, reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, and any question whether they were “other” imputations arising “in addition to” the plaintiffs' imputations could more practicably be determined after the jury's findings on the plaintiffs' imputations.

Court Disposition

Application to amend contextual imputations allowed, subject to the qualification as to whether the imputations meet the requirements of s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The amendment will be allowed.' "Questions whether the contextual imputations meet the requirements of s 26 are to be determined after it is known which of the plaintiffs' pleaded imputations the jury finds are conveyed."]