Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 922

Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 922

Leave to amend was appropriate because, unlike in Chel, the plaintiff accepted that the contextual imputations were capable of arising, and with one exception the contextual imputations carried the same or substantially the same defamatory sting as the plaintiff's imputations. The difference between the plaintiff's imputations and the contextual imputations concerned whether the alleged conduct was attributed to the plaintiff as owner or general manager of the business, which required a nuanced assessment of the evidence. In all the circumstances, the discretion to allow the amendment should be exercised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application to amend statement of claim allowed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'contextual Truth Defence' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'contextual Truth Defence' 'capacity of Imputations to Arise']

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 / Interlocutory Application to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the statement of claim to appropriate contextual imputations pleaded in the defence filed on 12 February 2016.' 'Whether leave should be refused where the plaintiff submitted that the contextual imputations were capable of arising but were not in fact conveyed.' 'Whether allowing the amendment would unfairly prejudice the defendants by depriving them of the contextual truth defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was appropriate because, unlike in Chel, the plaintiff accepted that the contextual imputations were capable of arising, and with one exception the contextual imputations carried the same or substantially the same defamatory sting as the plaintiff's imputations. The difference between the plaintiff's imputations and the contextual imputations concerned whether the alleged conduct was attributed to the plaintiff as owner or general manager of the business, which required a nuanced assessment of the evidence. In all the circumstances, the discretion to allow the amendment should be exercised.

Court Disposition

Application to amend statement of claim allowed.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted as sought.']