Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 236

Hunt v Radio 2SM Pty Ltd [2009] NSWDC 236

The defendant's challenges failed because the remaining imputations were capable of defamatory meaning and capable of being conveyed by the talkback radio broadcast when assessed from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable listener, not by a careful textual analysis. The pleaded forms were also permissible, including the use of "so misconducted himself", general allegations such as dishonesty, and an allegation of conflict of interest without further particularisation. Leave was granted for the plaintiff's conceded amendments, imputation (m) was withdrawn, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Under the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw) Arising From a Radio Broadcast / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Portions of the Amended Statement of Claim and Challenge the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Leave granted for specified amendments to imputations; imputation (m) withdrawn; defendant's argued challenges rejected; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; matter stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'defamatory Meaning' 'capacity of Imputations' 'form of Imputations' 'radio Broadcast']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['strike Out Application' 'defamatory Meaning' 'capacity of Imputations' 'form of Imputations' 'radio Broadcast']

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 Proceedings Under the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw) Arising From a Radio Broadcast / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Portions of the Amended Statement of Claim and Challenge the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the challenged imputations were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning' 'Whether imputations (g), (h), (p), (s) and (t) were capable of being conveyed by the broadcast' 'Whether imputation (d), using the phrase "so misconducted himself", was defective in form' 'Whether imputations using terms such as "dishonest", "questionable" and alleging conflict of interest were defective in form' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend certain imputations and whether some imputations should be withdrawn']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's challenges failed because the remaining imputations were capable of defamatory meaning and capable of being conveyed by the talkback radio broadcast when assessed from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable listener, not by a careful textual analysis. The pleaded forms were also permissible, including the use of "so misconducted himself", general allegations such as dishonesty, and an allegation of conflict of interest without further particularisation. Leave was granted for the plaintiff's conceded amendments, imputation (m) was withdrawn, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for specified amendments to imputations; imputation (m) withdrawn; defendant's argued challenges rejected; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs; matter stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff to add the words "by an investigator" to imputation (d) to read "The Plaintiff so misconducted himself as general manager of the Council that he is being investigated by an investigator."' 'Grant leave to the plaintiff to add the words "by an investigator" to imputation (h) to read...