Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 353

Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 353

The Attorney General's contribution to the live broadcast was limited to general explanations of the law of vexatious litigants, she did not refer to the plaintiff, had no control over the broadcast's final form and did not assent to the whole publication; accordingly, the claim against her as publisher of the first matter complained of was manifestly unsustainable. Several imputations were struck out, omitted, required to be re-pleaded or required an election because they were rhetorical, imprecise, embarrassing, duplicative or failed to distil a precise act or condition attributed to the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Arising Out of Two Radio 2 GB Broadcasts / First Listing; Procedural Rulings on the Third Defendant's Publication Application and Objections to the Form of Imputations
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim as against the third defendant in respect of the first matter complained of dismissed; rulings given as to form of imputations; parties directed to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the reasons.
Legal Topics
['publication Liability' 'live Radio Interview' 'pleadings' 'defamatory Imputations' 'strike Out' 'vexatious Litigants']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['publication Liability' 'live Radio Interview' 'pleadings' 'defamatory Imputations' 'strike Out' 'vexatious Litigants']

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 Arising Out of Two Radio 2 GB Broadcasts / First Listing; Procedural Rulings on the Third Defendant's Publication Application and Objections to the Form of Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Attorney General could be liable as a publisher of the whole of the first radio broadcast, including words spoken before she joined the programme by telephone.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were bad in form because they did not differ in substance, were imprecise, rhetorical, embarrassing or included extraneous words.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be required to omit, strike out, elect between or re-plead particular imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Attorney General's contribution to the live broadcast was limited to general explanations of the law of vexatious litigants, she did not refer to the plaintiff, had no control over the broadcast's final form and did not assent to the whole publication; accordingly, the claim against her as publisher of the first matter complained of was manifestly unsustainable. Several imputations were struck out, omitted, required to be re-pleaded or required an election because they were rhetorical, imprecise, embarrassing, duplicative or failed to distil a precise act or condition attributed to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim as against the third defendant in respect of the first matter complained of dismissed; rulings given as to form of imputations; parties directed to bring in short minutes of order reflecting the reasons.

Orders

  • ['The claim against the Attorney General as publisher of the first matter complained of is dismissed.' 'For the first matter complained of, imputation (a) is to be omitted from the next version of the pleading.' 'For the first matter complained of, imputation (c) is struck out.' 'For the first matter complained of,...