Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 676

Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 676

The words in imputation 9(g) that the plaintiff's behaviour warranted a public warning from the Attorney General were not, in the circumstances, mere rhetorical flourish. They added to the import of the broadcast by suggesting that the seriousness of the plaintiff's alleged behaviour was at the higher end of the scale and called for a stern response, so the defendants would have to prove that level of seriousness to justify the imputation. However, the Court adhered to its earlier ruling that imputations 9(f) and 9(g), considered against the whole matter complained of, did not differ in substance because the Attorney was not referring to two discrete actions but to the same response to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Further Hearing on Defendants' Objections to the Amended Statement of Claim; Procedural Rulings as to Imputations
Outcome
Rulings as to imputations; plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim reflecting the rulings given.
Legal Topics
['defamation Pleadings' 'imputations' 'striking Out Pleading Detail' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.30(3)' 'mayfield Smith Principle']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamation Pleadings' 'imputations' 'striking Out Pleading Detail' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.30(3)' 'mayfield Smith Principle']

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 / Further Hearing on Defendants' Objections to the Amended Statement of Claim; Procedural Rulings as to Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation 9(e) should be allowed in light of the ruling in Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 546.' "Whether the additional words in imputation 9(g), stating that the plaintiff's behaviour warranted a public warning from the Attorney General that his behaviour was being watched, were mere rhetorical flourish liable to be struck out under the Mayfield-Smith principle." 'Whether imputations 9(f) and 9(g) differed in substance for the purposes of r 14.30(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether imputation 9(i) should be permitted in an amended form agreed during argument.']

Ratio Decidendi

The words in imputation 9(g) that the plaintiff's behaviour warranted a public warning from the Attorney General were not, in the circumstances, mere rhetorical flourish. They added to the import of the broadcast by suggesting that the seriousness of the plaintiff's alleged behaviour was at the higher end of the scale and called for a stern response, so the defendants would have to prove that level of seriousness to justify the imputation. However, the Court adhered to its earlier ruling that imputations 9(f) and 9(g), considered against the whole matter complained of, did not differ in substance because the Attorney was not referring to two discrete actions but to the same response to...

Court Disposition

Rulings as to imputations; plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim reflecting the rulings given.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff to file and serve a further amended statement of claim in accordance with these reasons on or before 22 May 2017.' 'Defendants to file and serve a defence on or before 16 June 2017.' 'Plaintiff to serve any reply on or before 23 June 2017.' 'Proceedings listed for second listing on 21 July 2017.']