El-Mouelhy v QSociety of Australia Inc (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1816

El-Mouelhy v QSociety of Australia Inc (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1816

The second contextual imputation was struck out as not containing any defamatory sting or capable of meeting the requirements of s 26 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW); the remaining contextual imputations were not struck out at this stage as they differ in substance from those pleaded by the plaintiff, and determination requires trial of facts. Discovery was refused as it would require creation of a document, and the trial by jury of twelve was refused due to lack of evidence and Parliament's default of four jurors.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mohamed El-Mouelhy; First Defendant: QSociety of Australia Inc; Second Defendant: Kirralie Jane Smith; Third Defendant: Peter Dominic Callaghan; Fourth Defendant: Debbie Robinson; Fifth Defendant: Ralf Shumann
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory
Outcome
Plaintiff's applications dismissed except for strike-out of one contextual imputation
Legal Topics
Contextual Truth Defence, Discovery, Trial by Jury in Civil Proceedings
Defamation Contextual Truth Defence Discovery Trial by Jury in Civil Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed El-Mouelhy

Plaintiff

QSociety of Australia Inc

First Defendant

Kirralie Jane Smith

Second Defendant

Peter Dominic Callaghan

Third Defendant

Debbie Robinson

Fourth Defendant

Ralf Shumann

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contextual imputations pleaded by the defendants are capable of being defamatory
  2. 2 Whether contextual imputations differ in substance from plaintiff's imputations
  3. 3 Whether defendants should provide discovery of YouTube Analytics Report

Ratio Decidendi

The second contextual imputation was struck out as not containing any defamatory sting or capable of meeting the requirements of s 26 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW); the remaining contextual imputations were not struck out at this stage as they differ in substance from those pleaded by the plaintiff, and determination requires trial of facts. Discovery was refused as it would require creation of a document, and the trial by jury of twelve was refused due to lack of evidence and Parliament's default of four jurors.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's applications dismissed except for strike-out of one contextual imputation

Orders

  • Contextual imputation (ii) struck out; plaintiff's application to have the defence of contextual truth struck out otherwise dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's application for discovery is dismissed.