Greinert v Brooker (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1763

Greinert v Brooker (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1763

The defendants' proposed amended cross-claim was refused because it did not plead the elements of any cause of action against the broadcaster. The legislative requirement and principles of fairness necessitate specifying the basis of liability for the alleged contributor. The plaintiff's pleading was not liable to be struck out; where only seeking swelled damages for republication, it is neither necessary nor helpful to specify the imputations arising from the republication.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Alexander Greinert; First Defendant: John William Brooker; Second Defendant: Benjamin Morgan; First Cross Defendant: TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd; Second Cross Defendant: Nine Digital Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The defendants' application for leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim is refused; the defendants' application to have the amended statement of claim struck out is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Republication Liability, Pleading Requirements, Cross Claims for Contribution, Damages for Republication
Defamation Torts Civil Procedure Republication Liability Pleading Requirements Cross Claims for Contribution 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Alexander Greinert

Plaintiff

John William Brooker

First Defendant

Benjamin Morgan

Second Defendant

TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd

First Cross Defendant

Nine Digital Pty Ltd

Second Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cross-claim against a broadcaster for contribution must plead a cause of action in tort and the basis for liability under s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff must plead the meanings alleged to be conveyed by a republication when only relying on republication for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' proposed amended cross-claim was refused because it did not plead the elements of any cause of action against the broadcaster. The legislative requirement and principles of fairness necessitate specifying the basis of liability for the alleged contributor. The plaintiff's pleading was not liable to be struck out; where only seeking swelled damages for republication, it is neither necessary nor helpful to specify the imputations arising from the republication.

Court Disposition

The defendants' application for leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim is refused; the defendants' application to have the amended statement of claim struck out is dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to file the proposed amended cross-claim is refused.
  • The application to strike out the amended statement of claim is dismissed.