Schlaepfer v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2017] NSWSC 1656

Schlaepfer v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2017] NSWSC 1656

The statement of claim was not liable to be struck out: the pleaded publication, although not the whole conversation, was based on a contemporaneous record and sufficiently disclosed the statements and context; the particulars of identification were not incapable of identifying the first plaintiff; the challenged natural and ordinary imputations and true innuendos were capable of being conveyed; and the imputation using "authorised" was sufficiently precise in the circumstances of the pleaded matter complained of.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / First Listing; Determination of Defendants' Objections to the Form of the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' objections to the statement of claim rejected; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['publication' 'pleading Oral Publication' 'identification' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'strike Out']
['defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'civil Procedure'] ['publication' 'pleading Oral Publication' 'identification' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'strike Out']

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 and Injurious Falsehood / First Listing; Determination of Defendants' Objections to the Form of the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded element of publication was bad in form because it did not plead the whole of any single publication or the context of the publication.' 'Whether the pleaded particulars of identification were incapable of identifying the first plaintiff as the person about whom the statements were made.' 'Whether the imputations that the first plaintiff was engaging in unlawful market manipulation and criminal conduct by layering the stock market were capable of being conveyed in the matter complained of in its natural and ordinary meaning.' "Whether true innuendos concerning the first plaintiff's companies adequately distilled an act or condition attributed to the first plaintiff capable of reducing his reputation." 'Whether the imputation that the first plaintiff had authorised serious manipulation of the markets was insufficiently precise.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was not liable to be struck out: the pleaded publication, although not the whole conversation, was based on a contemporaneous record and sufficiently disclosed the statements and context; the particulars of identification were not incapable of identifying the first plaintiff; the challenged natural and ordinary imputations and true innuendos were capable of being conveyed; and the imputation using "authorised" was sufficiently precise in the circumstances of the pleaded matter complained of.

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections to the statement of claim rejected; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["Defendants' objections are rejected." 'Parties directed to bring in short minutes of order with a view to bringing the proceedings back before the Court for a second listing.' "Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of today's application."]