Triguboff v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 845

Triguboff v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 845

References in an article solely to a company, without explicit or implied linkage to an individual, do not render the publication 'reasonably capable of being about' the individual owner or manager, regardless of notoriety. Where the publication lacks words or context connecting the applicant to the company conduct, the corporate veil remains intact for defamation purposes, and section 9 of Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) bars action by or about a company alone; hence, the applicant cannot maintain a defamation action based solely on notoriety or ownership.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Hearing of Separate Question and Strike Out
Outcome
Judgment for the respondents, claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['separate Question Procedure' 'identification in Defamation' 'strike Out Applications' 'corporate Personality and Defamation' 'publication Requirements']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['separate Question Procedure' 'identification in Defamation' 'strike Out Applications' 'corporate Personality and Defamation' 'publication Requirements']

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 / Interlocutory Application for Hearing of Separate Question and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of is reasonably capable of being about the applicant' 'Whether reference to company name without more can constitute reference to individual behind company' 'Operation of s 9 of Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)' 'Jurisdictional issues regarding publication in ACT/NT' 'Whether imputations are capable of arising or are defamatory of applicant']

Ratio Decidendi

References in an article solely to a company, without explicit or implied linkage to an individual, do not render the publication 'reasonably capable of being about' the individual owner or manager, regardless of notoriety. Where the publication lacks words or context connecting the applicant to the company conduct, the corporate veil remains intact for defamation purposes, and section 9 of Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) bars action by or about a company alone; hence, the applicant cannot maintain a defamation action based solely on notoriety or ownership.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the respondents, claim dismissed

Orders

  • ["Separate question ordered: 'Is the matter complained of reasonably capable of being about the applicant?'" "Answer to separate question: 'No'" 'Judgment entered for the respondents' "Applicant to pay respondents' costs"]