El-Mouelhy v Q-Society of Australia Inc (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 990

El-Mouelhy v Q-Society of Australia Inc (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 990

The Court permitted the defendants to raise the further procedural objections despite the earlier listing because the proceedings had to be relisted in any event, the imputations should be settled properly before trial, and the complexity of the matters complained of warranted procedural flexibility. The plaintiff's global pleading of publication in every jurisdiction outside the United States was not maintainable without further particulars identifying occasions or jurisdictions of publication with greater specificity. Several imputations were struck out because they failed to identify a sufficiently precise defamatory act or condition, were impermissibly unclear, or were impossible to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Rulings on Particulars of Publication and Objections to Imputations at Second Listing
Outcome
Plaintiff required to provide further and better particulars of the worldwide publication allegation or have that allegation struck out; imputations 16(c), 16(e), 25(b), 25(c) and 25(d) struck out; objection to imputation 16(d) rejected.
Legal Topics
['defamation Pleadings' 'imputations' 'particulars of Publication' 'internet Publication' 'strike Out']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamation Pleadings' 'imputations' 'particulars of Publication' 'internet Publication' 'strike Out']

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 Proceedings / Procedural Rulings on Particulars of Publication and Objections to Imputations at Second Listing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was obliged to provide particulars of publication worldwide of the videos.' 'Whether the defendants should be permitted to raise objections that could have been taken at an earlier first listing hearing.' 'Whether imputation 16(c) was bad in form and should be struck out.' 'Whether imputation 16(d) was bad in form and should be struck out.' 'Whether imputation 16(e) was bad in form and should be struck out.' 'Whether imputations 25(b), 25(c) and 25(d) were bad in form and should be struck out.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court permitted the defendants to raise the further procedural objections despite the earlier listing because the proceedings had to be relisted in any event, the imputations should be settled properly before trial, and the complexity of the matters complained of warranted procedural flexibility. The plaintiff's global pleading of publication in every jurisdiction outside the United States was not maintainable without further particulars identifying occasions or jurisdictions of publication with greater specificity. Several imputations were struck out because they failed to identify a sufficiently precise defamatory act or condition, were impermissibly unclear, or were impossible to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff required to provide further and better particulars of the worldwide publication allegation or have that allegation struck out; imputations 16(c), 16(e), 25(b), 25(c) and 25(d) struck out; objection to imputation 16(d) rejected.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff should provide further and better particulars of the worldwide publication allegation or suffer the fate of having that allegation struck out.' 'Imputation 16(c) is struck out as bad in form.' 'The objection to imputation 16(d) is rejected and the imputation will go to the jury.' 'Imputation 16(e) is...