Ahmed v News Digital Media Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 184

Ahmed v News Digital Media Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 184

Exercising caution about deciding what the ordinary reasonable reader would understand concerning sentencing and criminal offences, the Court left imputations (c) and (d) to the jury as alternatives and dismissed the application to strike out imputations (a)–(f), subject to the plaintiff amending the statement of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application to Challenge the Form And/or Capacity of Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Application to strike out imputations (a)–(f) dismissed, subject to the plaintiff pleading imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'form and Capacity of Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'strike Out Application' 'internet Publication']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'form and Capacity of Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'strike Out Application' 'internet Publication']

Source-derived case record

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 Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application to Challenge the Form And/or Capacity of Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each of the pleaded imputations was defective in form or incapable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations that the plaintiff was convicted of, or guilty of, a home-loan mortgage scam should be struck out or left to the jury.' 'Whether imputations (c) and (d) should be pleaded as alternatives.']

Ratio Decidendi

Exercising caution about deciding what the ordinary reasonable reader would understand concerning sentencing and criminal offences, the Court left imputations (c) and (d) to the jury as alternatives and dismissed the application to strike out imputations (a)–(f), subject to the plaintiff amending the statement of claim to plead imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out imputations (a)–(f) dismissed, subject to the plaintiff pleading imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Subject to order 2, application to strike out imputations (a) – (f) dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to file and serve by 4 p.m. Wednesday 25 August 2010 an amended statement of claim pleading imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'Defence to the amended statement...