El-Mouelhy v QSociety of Australia Inc [2015] NSWSC 545

El-Mouelhy v QSociety of Australia Inc [2015] NSWSC 545

Imputations 16(a), 16(c), 16(e), 16(h) and 25(g) could not proceed as pleaded because some were legally embarrassing for imprecision or lack of specificity and others were not reasonably capable of being conveyed as pleaded; imputations 16(d), 25(c) and 25(d) were capable of being conveyed by the matters complained of and should be left to the jury, with 25(c) and 25(d) not being duplicative in substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / First Listing Hearing; Defendants' Objections to the Statement of Claim and Rulings on Imputations
Outcome
Defendants' objections were upheld in part and rejected in part; some imputations were struck out and others were ruled capable of being conveyed.
Legal Topics
['rulings on Imputations' 'capacity of Imputations to Be Conveyed' 'imprecision and Embarrassment in Pleading' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['rulings on Imputations' 'capacity of Imputations to Be Conveyed' 'imprecision and Embarrassment in Pleading' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28']

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 / First Listing Hearing; Defendants' Objections to the Statement of Claim and Rulings on Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether imputation 16(a), alleging corrupt conduct in the plaintiff's halal certification business, lacked sufficient specificity and was embarrassing." 'Whether imputation 16(c), alleging that the plaintiff was "un-Australian", was too imprecise to be permitted.' 'Whether imputation 16(d), alleging involvement in a push for instituting repressive sharia law in Australia, was capable of being conveyed.' 'Whether imputation 16(e), alleging promotion of a global push for Islamisation calculated to destroy Australian values of freedom and tolerance, was capable of being conveyed.' 'Whether imputations 16(h) and 25(g), alleging reasonable suspicion of providing financial support to terrorist organisations, were capable of being conveyed and were properly pleaded.' 'Whether imputations 25(c) and 25(d), alleging participation in conspiracies to destroy western civilisation from within and to achieve world domination, were capable of being conveyed and differed in substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 16(a), 16(c), 16(e), 16(h) and 25(g) could not proceed as pleaded because some were legally embarrassing for imprecision or lack of specificity and others were not reasonably capable of being conveyed as pleaded; imputations 16(d), 25(c) and 25(d) were capable of being conveyed by the matters complained of and should be left to the jury, with 25(c) and 25(d) not being duplicative in substance.

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections were upheld in part and rejected in part; some imputations were struck out and others were ruled capable of being conveyed.

Orders

  • ['Imputation 16(a) struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Imputation 16(c) struck out.' 'Imputation 16(d) ruled capable of being conveyed and to go to the jury.' 'Imputation 16(e) ruled not capable of arising, with leave to re-plead.' 'Imputation 16(h) struck out; the Court...