Oueik v Foley [2017] NSWSC 1324

Oueik v Foley [2017] NSWSC 1324

Leave was refused because the known impugned statement was incapable of conveying the pleaded imputations. The allegation that the plaintiff represented self-interest rather than community interest did not amount to dishonesty, and the pleaded hypocrisy imputation required unsupported knowledge that the plaintiff had disavowed self-interest when seeking office. The statement was in the present tense and concerned what the plaintiff then represented, while the imputations depended on his former status as a candidate or office holder. The court could not conjecture a wider defamatory context from the Seven Network broadcast, and the defendant was not liable for that broadcast because it did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Common Law Defamation Damages Claim / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim; Defendant Opposed Leave and Sought Dismissal
Outcome
Leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim refused and proceedings dismissed, with costs to the defendant subject to any special or different costs application.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity of Words to Convey Pleaded Meanings' 'true Innuendo' 'republication Liability' 'triviality Defence' 'leave to Amend Pleading']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity of Words to Convey Pleaded Meanings' 'true Innuendo' 'republication Liability' 'triviality Defence' 'leave to Amend Pleading']

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

Common Law Defamation Damages Claim / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim; Defendant Opposed Leave and Sought Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the impugned utterance was capable of conveying the pleaded imputations that the plaintiff was dishonest or a hypocrite because, as a politician, he sought public office for self-interest rather than community interest.' 'Whether extrinsic facts known to the journalist could support the same imputations as true innuendo.' 'Whether the defendant could be liable for republication by the Seven Network where the republication had a different context, sense and substance from the known utterance.' 'Whether leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim should be refused and the proceedings dismissed, including on the basis of triviality under s 33 of the Defamation Act 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the known impugned statement was incapable of conveying the pleaded imputations. The allegation that the plaintiff represented self-interest rather than community interest did not amount to dishonesty, and the pleaded hypocrisy imputation required unsupported knowledge that the plaintiff had disavowed self-interest when seeking office. The statement was in the present tense and concerned what the plaintiff then represented, while the imputations depended on his former status as a candidate or office holder. The court could not conjecture a wider defamatory context from the Seven Network broadcast, and the defendant was not liable for that broadcast because it did...

Court Disposition

Leave to file the Further Amended Statement of Claim refused and proceedings dismissed, with costs to the defendant subject to any special or different costs application.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim refused.' 'Proceedings dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings." 'Any party may seek a special or different order as to costs by application and submission of no more than five pages, attaching any...