Robert Hughes v. Seven Network Ltd and Another [2000] NSWSC 490

Robert Hughes v. Seven Network Ltd and Another [2000] NSWSC 490

Leave to plead the proposed imputations was granted or refused by assessing whether each imputation was clear, substantially distinct from existing imputations, capable in form, and whether its late inclusion would prejudice the defendants or require vacation of the trial date. Imputation 3(iv) was struck out because its meaning was difficult to grasp; imputation 3(ii) was struck out because it did not differ in substance from imputation 3(vi); and leave to plead imputation 3(xiii) was refused because the defendants had not had an opportunity to investigate the wider basis of substandard accommodation and the plaintiff wished to preserve the trial date. Leave was granted for imputations...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings, Striking Out Imputations, and Discovery
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion allowed in part; plaintiff granted leave in part to file a Third Amended Statement of Claim; economic loss claim not struck out; discovery ordered.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'strike Out of Imputations' 'contextual Imputations' 'justification and Contextual Justification' 'economic Loss Particulars and Discovery']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'strike Out of Imputations' 'contextual Imputations' 'justification and Contextual Justification' 'economic Loss Particulars and Discovery']

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 / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings, Striking Out Imputations, and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to plead additional or amended imputations in the proposed Third Amended Statement of Claim' 'Whether particular imputations should be struck out for uncertainty, duplication, want of substantial difference, or late prejudice' "Whether the plaintiff's claim for economic loss should be struck out" 'Whether the plaintiff should provide discovery of documents supporting the economic loss claim']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to plead the proposed imputations was granted or refused by assessing whether each imputation was clear, substantially distinct from existing imputations, capable in form, and whether its late inclusion would prejudice the defendants or require vacation of the trial date. Imputation 3(iv) was struck out because its meaning was difficult to grasp; imputation 3(ii) was struck out because it did not differ in substance from imputation 3(vi); and leave to plead imputation 3(xiii) was refused because the defendants had not had an opportunity to investigate the wider basis of substandard accommodation and the plaintiff wished to preserve the trial date. Leave was granted for imputations...

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion allowed in part; plaintiff granted leave in part to file a Third Amended Statement of Claim; economic loss claim not struck out; discovery ordered.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to provide discovery of all documents in support of his claim for economic loss including but not limited to all income tax returns (both personal and in relation to the plaintiff's business or businesses and any other source of income the plaintiff had), bank account statements, wage slips,...