Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1601

Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1601

Contextual imputations pleaded by the defendants must be precise and capable of arising as 'other' imputations in addition to those pleaded by the plaintiff; reformulations or ambiguous imputations or those not differing substantially are not permissible under s 26(a) of the Defamation Act 2005 and should be struck out.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Edmund Thomas Gregory Bateman; Second Plaintiff: Idameneo (No 123) Pty Limited; First Defendant: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Natashia Wallace; Fourth Defendant: Vanda Carson; Fifth Defendant: Jeremy Cumpston
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Objections to Contextual Imputations in Defence
Outcome
Defendants' contextual imputations objected to were struck out.
Legal Topics
Defence of Contextual Truth, Pleading Requirements, Contextual Imputations, Statutory Interpretation
Defamation Defence of Contextual Truth Pleading Requirements Contextual Imputations Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund Thomas Gregory Bateman

First Plaintiff

Idameneo (No 123) Pty Limited

Second Plaintiff

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited

First Defendant

Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Natashia Wallace

Third Defendant

Vanda Carson

Fourth Defendant

Jeremy Cumpston

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Objections to Contextual Imputations in Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is required for a contextual imputation to comply with s 26(a) of the Defamation Act 2005?
  2. 2 Must a contextual imputation differ in substance and character/kind from the plaintiff's imputations?
  3. 3 Do ambiguous or imprecise contextual imputations satisfy statutory requirements?

Ratio Decidendi

Contextual imputations pleaded by the defendants must be precise and capable of arising as 'other' imputations in addition to those pleaded by the plaintiff; reformulations or ambiguous imputations or those not differing substantially are not permissible under s 26(a) of the Defamation Act 2005 and should be struck out.

Court Disposition

Defendants' contextual imputations objected to were struck out.

Orders

  • Contextual imputations 1A, 1B, 1D, 1E, 3A, 3B, and 3D are struck out.
  • Defendants granted leave to re-plead contextual imputations 1E and 3D.