ABC v Obeid [2006] NSWCA 231

ABC v Obeid [2006] NSWCA 231

The respondent was not obliged to plead the additional broadcast material unless it could reasonably be regarded as part of the same publication as the matter complained of. Given the lack of sufficient connection and unity, and the temporal separation, the trial judge was correct to refuse the appellant’s 'strike in' application. The boundaries of the relevant publication were properly marked out as the complained-of segment alone; the appellant’s challenge to the omission was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summons for leave to appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['publication' 'radio Broadcast' 'pleading Requirements' 'strike in Application' 'qualified Privilege' 'context in Defamation']
['defamation'] ['publication' 'radio Broadcast' 'pleading Requirements' 'strike in Application' 'qualified Privilege' 'context in Defamation']

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 Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was obliged to plead additional broadcast material as part of the matter complained of in defamation proceedings' 'Whether the omitted material was capable of materially altering or qualifying the complexion of pleaded imputations' 'Whether the appellant was entitled to have the additional material considered in the context of its defences, particularly qualified privilege']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not obliged to plead the additional broadcast material unless it could reasonably be regarded as part of the same publication as the matter complained of. Given the lack of sufficient connection and unity, and the temporal separation, the trial judge was correct to refuse the appellant’s 'strike in' application. The boundaries of the relevant publication were properly marked out as the complained-of segment alone; the appellant’s challenge to the omission was rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summons for leave to appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Summons for leave to appeal dismissed.' "The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the summons for leave to appeal."]