Greinert v Brooker (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1771

Greinert v Brooker (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1771

Leave was refused because the proposed amended cross-claim attempted to plead against the broadcaster what was properly only a particular of damages against the sources, namely the repetition of the sources' words in the broadcast. If the plaintiff had sued the broadcaster, the cause of action would have had to be pleaded by reference to the whole matter published by the broadcaster, the whole episode, not merely the sources' words repeated as part of it. The proposed pleading therefore did not properly plead a sustainable cause of action against the broadcaster on which contribution under s 5(1)(c) could be based.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding With Cross Claim for Contribution / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File a Proposed Amended Cross Claim
Outcome
Leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim served on 29 October 2018 was refused.
Legal Topics
['republication' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'pleading a Cross Claim' 'matter Complained Of' 'damages for Republication']
['defamation' 'torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['republication' 'contribution Between Tort Feasors' 'pleading a Cross Claim' 'matter Complained Of' 'damages for Republication']

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 Proceeding With Cross Claim for Contribution / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File a Proposed Amended Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sources should have leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim against the broadcaster under s 5(1)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW).' "Whether the proposed cross-claim could plead the broadcaster's alleged liability by reference to portions of interviews published as part of an episode of 60 Minutes rather than the whole episode." 'Whether material relied on by the plaintiff only as damages for republication against the sources could be pleaded as a discrete cause of action against the broadcaster.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the proposed amended cross-claim attempted to plead against the broadcaster what was properly only a particular of damages against the sources, namely the repetition of the sources' words in the broadcast. If the plaintiff had sued the broadcaster, the cause of action would have had to be pleaded by reference to the whole matter published by the broadcaster, the whole episode, not merely the sources' words repeated as part of it. The proposed pleading therefore did not properly plead a sustainable cause of action against the broadcaster on which contribution under s 5(1)(c) could be based.

Court Disposition

Leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim served on 29 October 2018 was refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim served on 29 October 2018 is refused.']