Andersen v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Andersen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 358

Andersen v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd; Andersen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 358

The plaintiff was neither named nor referred to in the publications, and the pleaded extrinsic facts that she was in a de facto relationship with Jesse Thompson and had children with him were insufficient to identify her as the subject of defamatory imputations about knowing of or participating in his alleged criminal or gang activities. The evidence did not show that any person, by reason of the extrinsic facts, identified the plaintiff in the pleaded defamatory senses, and an ordinary reasonable person could not reasonably draw that conclusion. Because there was no identification, the matters were also not reasonably capable of conveying any of the pleaded imputations about the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Separate Determination Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 28.2 and Judgment Under R 28.4
Outcome
Leave granted for a separate trial; both separate questions answered No; both proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['identification in Defamation' 'true Innuendo and Extrinsic Facts' 'capacity of Imputations' 'separate Trial' 'media Publications' 'costs']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['identification in Defamation' 'true Innuendo and Extrinsic Facts' 'capacity of Imputations' 'separate Trial' 'media Publications' 'costs']

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 Proceedings / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Separate Determination Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 28.2 and Judgment Under R 28.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for a separate trial under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 28.2.' 'Whether the matters complained of were reasonably capable of being understood to be about the plaintiff.' 'Whether the matters complained of were reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded imputations, or any of them.' 'Whether the proceedings should be struck out and dismissed under UCPR r 28.4.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was neither named nor referred to in the publications, and the pleaded extrinsic facts that she was in a de facto relationship with Jesse Thompson and had children with him were insufficient to identify her as the subject of defamatory imputations about knowing of or participating in his alleged criminal or gang activities. The evidence did not show that any person, by reason of the extrinsic facts, identified the plaintiff in the pleaded defamatory senses, and an ordinary reasonable person could not reasonably draw that conclusion. Because there was no identification, the matters were also not reasonably capable of conveying any of the pleaded imputations about the...

Court Disposition

Leave granted for a separate trial; both separate questions answered No; both proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to the defendants to seek a separate trial pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Pt 28 r 28.2 for the purpose of answering the questions identified in Order 2 below.' 'The questions asked in the separate trial are answered as follows: (a) Is the matter complained of reasonably capable...