Ashworth aka Otto v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 008 685 407); Otto (aka Ashworth) v Gold Coast Publications Pty Limited; Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 188

Ashworth aka Otto v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 008 685 407); Otto (aka Ashworth) v Gold Coast Publications Pty Limited; Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 188

The pleaded imputations, including that the plaintiff was a notorious con-man, promoted fake events, preyed on young women, and posted deceptive advertisements for sexual purposes, were found to be substantially true on the evidence. Defences of justification and contextual justification succeeded for all proceedings. Judgment was entered for all defendants. No damages were awarded. Plaintiff’s application to reopen was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants in all proceedings.
Legal Topics
['justification' 'contextual Justification' 'capacity and Meaning of Imputations' 'damages' 'mitigation of Damages' 'application to Reopen Case']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil'] ['justification' 'contextual Justification' 'capacity and Meaning of Imputations' 'damages' 'mitigation of Damages' 'application to Reopen Case']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the publications conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff.' 'Whether the imputations pleaded are capable of arising and are defamatory.' 'Whether the defences of justification and contextual justification are established.' 'Whether the plaintiff should recover damages if justification is not proved.' 'Application for leave to reopen the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded imputations, including that the plaintiff was a notorious con-man, promoted fake events, preyed on young women, and posted deceptive advertisements for sexual purposes, were found to be substantially true on the evidence. Defences of justification and contextual justification succeeded for all proceedings. Judgment was entered for all defendants. No damages were awarded. Plaintiff’s application to reopen was refused.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants in all proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant in proceedings 2016/221796.' 'Judgment for the defendants in proceedings 2016/338258.' 'Judgment for the defendant in proceedings 2016/338264.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs." 'Liberty to apply in relation to costs.' 'Exhibits retained for 28 days.']