Ha v Cho [2015] NSWDC 169

Ha v Cho [2015] NSWDC 169

The statement of claim was struck out because it did not identify with certainty the publications for which the first defendant was said to be liable, did not plead the words spoken to the journalists or republications in haec verba, and impermissibly attempted to rely on selected excerpts from newspaper articles as an artificially constructed matter complained of. Leave to replead was granted because it was early in the proceedings, but indemnity costs were ordered because the plaintiff persisted with defective pleadings despite reasonable correspondence and prior explanations of the relevant principles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Application to Strike Out the Statement of Claim With Leave to Replead and Costs Applications
Outcome
Statement of Claim struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the strike out application on an indemnity basis; costs of the imputation argument reserved.
Legal Topics
['liability for Publication to a Journalist' 'republication' 'pleading Defamatory Publications in Haec Verba' 'strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'indemnity Costs' 'imputations']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['liability for Publication to a Journalist' 'republication' 'pleading Defamatory Publications in Haec Verba' 'strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'indemnity Costs' 'imputations']

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 Defamation Proceedings / Application to Strike Out the Statement of Claim With Leave to Replead and Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was entitled to plead a defamation claim against the first defendant based on selected parts of newspaper articles rather than the words spoken by the first defendant to journalists.' 'Whether the statement of claim identified the relevant publications with sufficient precision, including by pleading republications in haec verba and in separate counts where required.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs of the strike out application on an indemnity basis." 'Whether costs of the deferred imputations argument should be ordered or reserved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was struck out because it did not identify with certainty the publications for which the first defendant was said to be liable, did not plead the words spoken to the journalists or republications in haec verba, and impermissibly attempted to rely on selected excerpts from newspaper articles as an artificially constructed matter complained of. Leave to replead was granted because it was early in the proceedings, but indemnity costs were ordered because the plaintiff persisted with defective pleadings despite reasonable correspondence and prior explanations of the relevant principles.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the strike out application on an indemnity basis; costs of the imputation argument reserved.

Orders

  • ['Statement of Claim struck out with leave to replead.' 'Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 17 September 2015 at 9:00am (imputations argument).' 'Costs of the imputation argument are reserved.' 'Grant leave to the plaintiff to file a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim in 14 days.' "Plaintiff...