Samsun Pty Ltd & Ors v Andrew Wily & Anor [2000] NSWSC 281

Samsun Pty Ltd & Ors v Andrew Wily & Anor [2000] NSWSC 281

The press release was specifically limited to one Sydney CBD franchise and did not refer to or defame any other franchises or the franchisor; therefore, neither the original nor republications were capable of giving rise to the pleaded defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs. Given the original was not defamatory, the defendants were not liable for republications by third parties.

Parties
Plaintiff: Samsun Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Betanza Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Gil McLachlan & Mark Giffin t/as Harvey World Travel Manly; Plaintiff: McCarroll's (International) Travel World Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Hamerline Pty Limited; Plaintiff: S & R Travel Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Derran Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Coronet Court Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Harvey World Travel Franchises Pty Limited; Defendant: Andrew Wily; Defendant: Guy McKanna
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory (strike Out Application)
Outcome
Verdict for the defendants on all claims; plaintiffs' pleadings struck out.
Legal Topics
Imputations, Liability for Republication, Identification in Defamation
Defamation Imputations Liability for Republication Identification in Defamation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samsun Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Betanza Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Gil McLachlan & Mark Giffin t/as Harvey World Travel Manly

Plaintiff

McCarroll's (International) Travel World Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Hamerline Pty Limited

Plaintiff

S & R Travel Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Derran Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Coronet Court Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Harvey World Travel Franchises Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Andrew Wily

Defendant

Guy McKanna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory (strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the press release or its republication was capable of giving rise to the pleaded defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether defendants could be liable for republications by newspapers

Ratio Decidendi

The press release was specifically limited to one Sydney CBD franchise and did not refer to or defame any other franchises or the franchisor; therefore, neither the original nor republications were capable of giving rise to the pleaded defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs. Given the original was not defamatory, the defendants were not liable for republications by third parties.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendants on all claims; plaintiffs' pleadings struck out.

Orders

  • Verdict for the defendants in accordance with s7A(2) of the Defamation Act.
  • Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs.