James v Faddoul [2007] NSWSC 821

James v Faddoul [2007] NSWSC 821

The notice of motion failed because the pleadings and available inferences were capable of satisfying the elements of injurious falsehood: the emails could be inferred to be false statements concerning the plaintiffs' businesses, published to third persons maliciously and with an intention to injure those businesses, and actual financial loss was pleaded as special damage. The defendants did not demonstrate that the claims were so obviously untenable that they could not possibly succeed, and each plaintiff had an arguable claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Claiming Damages for Defamation, Breach of Confidence and Injurious Falsehood / First and Second Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Claims for Injurious Falsehood
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; first and second defendants ordered to pay the costs of the first, second and third plaintiffs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'injurious Falsehood' 'defamation' 'breach of Confidence' 'special Damage']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'injurious Falsehood' 'defamation' 'breach of Confidence' 'special Damage']

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 Proceedings Claiming Damages for Defamation, Breach of Confidence and Injurious Falsehood / First and Second Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Claims for Injurious Falsehood

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 38-45 of the second further amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for injurious falsehood.' 'Whether the whole claim for injurious falsehood should be struck out as in substance a claim for hurt feelings.' "Whether the second and third plaintiffs' claims for injurious falsehood should be struck out on the basis that the alleged statements did not concern them or their businesses." 'Whether the plaintiffs were required to plead that damage was caused by action or behaviour of the recipients of the emails.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion failed because the pleadings and available inferences were capable of satisfying the elements of injurious falsehood: the emails could be inferred to be false statements concerning the plaintiffs' businesses, published to third persons maliciously and with an intention to injure those businesses, and actual financial loss was pleaded as special damage. The defendants did not demonstrate that the claims were so obviously untenable that they could not possibly succeed, and each plaintiff had an arguable claim.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; first and second defendants ordered to pay the costs of the first, second and third plaintiffs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' 'The first and second defendants pay the costs of the first, second and third plaintiffs of this motion.']