Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 32

Otto v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 32

In the context of the matter complained of, the pleaded 'indecent proposal' in imputation (b) was the same essential allegation as imputation (d): that the plaintiff offered Ms Chandler money if she entered into a sexual relationship with him. If imputation (b) was intended to mean something different, it was too...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Defendant's Challenge to Pleaded Imputations Under R 14.30 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Defendant's challenge upheld; imputation (b) struck out; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs; matter stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'strike Out' 'vagueness of Pleaded Imputation']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'strike Out' 'vagueness of Pleaded Imputation']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Defendant's Challenge to Pleaded Imputations Under R 14.30 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (b), that the plaintiff made an indecent proposal to Shayla Chandler, differed in substance from imputation (d), that the plaintiff offered Shayla Chandler money if she would enter into a sexual relationship with him.' 'Whether imputation (b) was impermissibly vague if it meant anything other than imputation (d).' 'What orders should be made concerning imputations (b) and (d).']

Ratio Decidendi

In the context of the matter complained of, the pleaded 'indecent proposal' in imputation (b) was the same essential allegation as imputation (d): that the plaintiff offered Ms Chandler money if she entered into a sexual relationship with him. If imputation (b) was intended to mean something different, it was too broadly framed and insufficiently specific for the defendant to know the case it had to meet. Imputation (b) therefore did not differ in substance from imputation (d) and was struck out.

Court Disposition

Defendant's challenge upheld; imputation (b) struck out; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs; matter stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 14.30 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) strike out imputation (b) as not differing in substance to imputation (d); requirement to file an Amended Statement of Claim waived.' "Plaintiff pay defendant's costs." "Defendant's Defence in 28 days." "Plaintiff's Reply 28 days thereafter." 'Matter...