Philip Sullivan v Andrew Griffin [2012] NSWSC 687

Philip Sullivan v Andrew Griffin [2012] NSWSC 687

The Sydney presentation and the internet publications were the same as, or like, the Brisbane presentation because, despite identified differences in wording and additional statements, the presentations were substantially similar in content and conveyed the same overall impression in context; s 23 required comparison of the whole publications, not merely the pleaded extracts or the mode, place, occasion or audience of publication.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings for Damages / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Leave Under S 23 Defamation Act 2005
Outcome
The Court found that the Sydney presentation and internet publications were the same as, or like, the Brisbane presentation for the purposes of s 23 Defamation Act 2005, but made no final order because the issues of leave and costs were stood over.
Legal Topics
['further Proceedings Against Same Defendant' 'same or Like Matter' 'internet Publications' 'construction of Matter Under S 4 Defamation Act 2005' 'leave Under S 23 Defamation Act 2005']
['defamation'] ['further Proceedings Against Same Defendant' 'same or Like Matter' 'internet Publications' 'construction of Matter Under S 4 Defamation Act 2005' 'leave Under S 23 Defamation Act 2005']

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 for Damages / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Leave Under S 23 Defamation Act 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sydney presentation and internet publications were the same as, or like, the Brisbane presentation for the purposes of s 23 Defamation Act 2005.' 'Whether the definition of matter in s 4 Defamation Act 2005 requires consideration of the mode, occasion, place or audience of publication rather than the contents of the publication.' 'Whether the comparison under s 23 Defamation Act 2005 is confined to the particular words or passages pleaded by the plaintiff in each proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Sydney presentation and the internet publications were the same as, or like, the Brisbane presentation because, despite identified differences in wording and additional statements, the presentations were substantially similar in content and conveyed the same overall impression in context; s 23 required comparison of the whole publications, not merely the pleaded extracts or the mode, place, occasion or audience of publication.

Court Disposition

The Court found that the Sydney presentation and internet publications were the same as, or like, the Brisbane presentation for the purposes of s 23 Defamation Act 2005, but made no final order because the issues of leave and costs were stood over.

Orders

  • ['I stand over these proceedings to the defamation list 9.30am 9 July 2012.']