Greenfield v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd ; Greenfield v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 125

Greenfield v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd ; Greenfield v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 125

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed contextual imputation was reasonably capable of arising from the matters complained of, was not shown to be incapable of satisfying s 26(b), and in the ABC proceeding was capable of being found to arise in addition to the plaintiff's imputations. Objections to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application by Each Defendant for Leave to Amend Its Defence to Rely on a New Contextual Imputation
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to file an amended defence; costs of the argument ordered to be the defendants' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['contextual Truth' 'amendment of Defence' 'capacity of Imputations' 'strike Out Application' 'particulars of Truth Defence']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Truth' 'amendment of Defence' 'capacity of Imputations' 'strike Out Application' 'particulars of Truth Defence']

Source-derived case record

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 / Application by Each Defendant for Leave to Amend Its Defence to Rely on a New Contextual Imputation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed contextual imputation that the plaintiff is a corrupt union official in that he used his position in the CFMEU to advance the business interests of George Alex over the interests of workers was capable of being carried by the first Fairfax matter complained of.' 'Whether the proposed contextual imputation was capable of satisfying s 26(b) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the proposed contextual imputation in the ABC proceeding was capable of arising in addition to the plaintiff's pleaded defamatory imputations for the purposes of s 26(a) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether objections to particulars of the truth defence should be determined interlocutorily or left to the trial judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed contextual imputation was reasonably capable of arising from the matters complained of, was not shown to be incapable of satisfying s 26(b), and in the ABC proceeding was capable of being found to arise in addition to the plaintiff's imputations. Objections to particulars of the truth defence were generally matters more properly left to the trial judge in the context of evidentiary rulings.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to file an amended defence; costs of the argument ordered to be the defendants' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to the defendants to file an amended defence in accordance with these reasons and the matters otherwise agreed between the parties within 14 days.' "I order that the costs of today's argument be the defendants' costs in the cause."]