Kyle Sandilands v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1250

Kyle Sandilands v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1250

The defendant failed to show that the three broadcasts could only properly be pleaded as a single publication. The promotion, the programme and the second programme were discrete although related television broadcasts, with self-evident differences in occasion and content; each was separately actionable if...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim Under UCPR R 14.28 and to Require Pleading of Broadcasts as One Publication or as an Alternative Composite Count
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'multiple Publications' 'strike Out Application' 'composite Publication' 'television Broadcasts' 'separate Causes of Action']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading' 'multiple Publications' 'strike Out Application' 'composite Publication' 'television Broadcasts' 'separate Causes of Action']

Source-derived case record

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 Action / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim Under UCPR R 14.28 and to Require Pleading of Broadcasts as One Publication or as an Alternative Composite Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's pleading of the promotion and the programme as separate publications was unreasonable." 'Whether the promotion, the programme and the second programme could only properly be pleaded as a single composite publication.' 'Whether the defendant was entitled to an order requiring the plaintiff to plead a publication on which he had not sued.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to show that the three broadcasts could only properly be pleaded as a single publication. The promotion, the programme and the second programme were discrete although related television broadcasts, with self-evident differences in occasion and content; each was separately actionable if defamatory. It was therefore not unreasonable for the plaintiff to sue on the promotion and the programme as separate causes of action and not to sue on the second programme.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's notice of motion filed 28 November 2005 is dismissed." "The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs."]