Griffith v ABC [No 1] [2007] NSWSC 711

Griffith v ABC [No 1] [2007] NSWSC 711

There was no evidence of special damage incurred by Mr Griffith on his own behalf; the public relations consultants were retained for the Foundation and not for Mr Griffith personally. Without proof of special damage attributable to Mr Griffith, the injurious falsehood action must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / No Case to Answer Submission on Injurious Falsehood Claim After Close of Plaintiff's Case at Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants on Mr Griffith's injurious falsehood action; costs to defendants.
Legal Topics
['injurious Falsehood' 'special Damage' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 29.10' 'issue Estoppel']
['defamation'] ['injurious Falsehood' 'special Damage' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 29.10' 'issue Estoppel']

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

Civil / No Case to Answer Submission on Injurious Falsehood Claim After Close of Plaintiff's Case at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff suffered special damage as a direct and natural result of publication for injurious falsehood claim' 'Whether payment for public relations consultancy constitutes special damage attributable to plaintiff personally']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of special damage incurred by Mr Griffith on his own behalf; the public relations consultants were retained for the Foundation and not for Mr Griffith personally. Without proof of special damage attributable to Mr Griffith, the injurious falsehood action must fail.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants on Mr Griffith's injurious falsehood action; costs to defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants in the action by Mr Griffith for injurious falsehood.' "Mr Griffith should pay the defendants' costs in respect of such action."]