Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 86

Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 86

Many of the pleadings in the statement of claim fail for ambiguity, lack of precision, or incapacity to be conveyed by the publications, and are to be struck out. Some imputations do not differ in substance and election will be required. Claims for defamation based on a New Zealand publication are barred by the New Zealand limitation period, as the limitation law is substantive and thus precludes suit in Australia. Ancillary tort claims (deceit, injurious falsehood) survive pleading challenge to the extent indicated, subject to better particularisation of malice for injurious falsehood.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Pleadings Challenge / Interlocutory (separate Trial on Objections to Pleadings/imputations)
Outcome
Strike out (in part), leave to replead, directions for election and particulars; interlocutory determination.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'republication' 'statute of Limitations (foreign Torts)']
['torts' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'republication' 'statute of Limitations (foreign Torts)']

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; Pleadings Challenge / Interlocutory (separate Trial on Objections to Pleadings/imputations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particular defamatory imputations are ambiguous, imprecise or incapable of being conveyed by the publications;' 'Whether certain pleadings should be struck out for form or substance;' 'Whether foreign limitation law bars claims for foreign publications;' 'Whether ancillary tort claims (deceit, injurious falsehood) are properly pleaded;']

Ratio Decidendi

Many of the pleadings in the statement of claim fail for ambiguity, lack of precision, or incapacity to be conveyed by the publications, and are to be struck out. Some imputations do not differ in substance and election will be required. Claims for defamation based on a New Zealand publication are barred by the New Zealand limitation period, as the limitation law is substantive and thus precludes suit in Australia. Ancillary tort claims (deceit, injurious falsehood) survive pleading challenge to the extent indicated, subject to better particularisation of malice for injurious falsehood.

Court Disposition

Strike out (in part), leave to replead, directions for election and particulars; interlocutory determination.

Orders

  • ['Imputations found ambiguous, imprecise, or incapable of being conveyed are to be struck out.' 'Where imputations do not differ in substance, plaintiffs to elect which to pursue.' 'Claims based on the seventh matter complained of (New Zealand publication) are struck out for being statute barred under New Zealand...