Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 546

Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 546

Imputations 9(ii) and 11(ii) were imprecise and, read in the context of the whole article, did not differ in substance from imputations 9(v) and 11(v). Imputations 9(xii) and 11(xi) were elevated beyond any meaning the article was reasonably capable of conveying, because the relevant passage did not refer to another person's suspicion or state of mind and was not capable of conveying that the plaintiff had been convicted for acts of physical violence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Pleadings Objection / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Imputations in Proposed Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Imputations 9(ii), (xii), 11(ii) and (xi) struck out
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'imputations' 'striking Out' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'imputations' 'striking Out' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations']

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 Pleadings Objection / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Imputations in Proposed Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 9(ii) and 11(ii) were bad in form for imprecision or did not differ in substance from imputations 9(v) and 11(v).' 'Whether imputations 9(xii) and 11(xi) were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 9(ii) and 11(ii) were imprecise and, read in the context of the whole article, did not differ in substance from imputations 9(v) and 11(v). Imputations 9(xii) and 11(xi) were elevated beyond any meaning the article was reasonably capable of conveying, because the relevant passage did not refer to another person's suspicion or state of mind and was not capable of conveying that the plaintiff had been convicted for acts of physical violence.

Court Disposition

Imputations 9(ii), (xii), 11(ii) and (xi) struck out

Orders

  • ['Imputations 9(ii) and 11(ii) struck out as being bad in form for imprecision and otherwise not differing in substance from imputations 9(v) and 11(v) respectively.' 'Imputations 9(xii) and 11(xi) struck out as incapable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.']