Adams v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 198

Adams v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 198

Imputations pleaded must be assessed individually for their capacity to be conveyed as defamatory statements by the broadcasts in question; only those that are manifestly groundless or duplicative should be struck out. Context, broadcast format, and community standards are relevant, and borderline cases are generally for the jury. Costs and further conduct flow from the result of this interlocutory hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory—application to Strike Out Imputations in Statement of Claim
Outcome
Imputations partly struck out; order for amended claim and costs; matter stood over for further argument.
Legal Topics
['defamation—capacity and Form of Imputations' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'trial by Jury in Defamation Actions' 'costs Orders']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['defamation—capacity and Form of Imputations' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'trial by Jury in Defamation Actions' 'costs Orders']

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

Civil / Interlocutory—application to Strike Out Imputations in Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations are reasonably capable of being conveyed by the television broadcasts' 'Whether pleaded imputations are bad in form or duplicative' 'Whether some imputations should be struck out or permitted to go to the jury' 'Costs arising from the interlocutory application' 'Whether proceedings should be tried by jury or judge-alone under s 21(3) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations pleaded must be assessed individually for their capacity to be conveyed as defamatory statements by the broadcasts in question; only those that are manifestly groundless or duplicative should be struck out. Context, broadcast format, and community standards are relevant, and borderline cases are generally for the jury. Costs and further conduct flow from the result of this interlocutory hearing.

Court Disposition

Imputations partly struck out; order for amended claim and costs; matter stood over for further argument.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4(a), 4(c), 6(d), 6(h), 6(i) are struck out.' 'Imputations 6(e) and 8(f) are struck out with leave to replead.' 'Imputations 4(b), 4(d), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(f), 6(g), 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), and 8(g) will go to the jury.' 'Amended statement of claim by 24 September 2010.' 'Defence to amended...