Haddad v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1667

Haddad v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1667

The existing imputation was ambiguous and the ambiguity should be resolved before trial. The proposed higher imputation was reasonably capable of being conveyed, and the evidence did not establish practical prejudice sufficient to refuse the late amendment. However, the proposed reply should not be allowed because the pleaded inference of malice or dishonesty could not be drawn from the photographs and words alone, and late shifting of issues close to trial would create case management prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications by the Second, Third and Fourth Plaintiffs for Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim and File a Reply Before Trial
Outcome
Leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend the statement of claim by inserting new imputation 7(b); leave to file the proposed reply refused; leave granted to the defendant to file the second further amended defence to the amended statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'reply' 'qualified Privilege' 'honest Opinion' 'malice' 'case Management']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'reply' 'qualified Privilege' 'honest Opinion' 'malice' 'case Management']

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 / Interlocutory Applications by the Second, Third and Fourth Plaintiffs for Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim and File a Reply Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to amend an allegedly ambiguous imputation from "that he took part in a violent protest" to "that he willingly took part in the violence at a protest".' 'Whether the proposed amended imputation was reasonably capable of being conveyed by the second matter complained of.' 'Whether the late amendment would occasion prejudice to the defendant sufficient to refuse leave.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to file a reply pleading malice and matters in answer to qualified privilege and honest opinion.' 'Whether the proposed particulars of malice based on language and selection of photographs were capable of supporting the pleaded state of mind.']

Ratio Decidendi

The existing imputation was ambiguous and the ambiguity should be resolved before trial. The proposed higher imputation was reasonably capable of being conveyed, and the evidence did not establish practical prejudice sufficient to refuse the late amendment. However, the proposed reply should not be allowed because the pleaded inference of malice or dishonesty could not be drawn from the photographs and words alone, and late shifting of issues close to trial would create case management prejudice.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the plaintiffs to amend the statement of claim by inserting new imputation 7(b); leave to file the proposed reply refused; leave granted to the defendant to file the second further amended defence to the amended statement of claim.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs have leave to file an amended statement of claim so as to insert new imputation 7(b), "that the plaintiff willingly took part in the violence at a protest".' 'The defendant have leave to file the second further amended defence to the amended statement of claim.']