Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707

Gould v TCN Channel 9 & Ors [2000] NSWSC 707

The amended statement of claim was struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the partnership claims were not properly constituted under Pt8 r3, and an amendment relying on negligence would be futile because the alleged damage arose from publication and was properly a matter for defamation rather than a negligence duty in the circumstances pleaded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim Filed on 29 December 1999
Outcome
Amended Statement of Claim struck out and the action dismissed; costs reserved; stood over for mention.
Legal Topics
['strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'negligence as an Alternative to Defamation' 'partnership Capacity and Joinder' 'pleading Material Facts']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'negligence' 'partnership Law'] ['strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'negligence as an Alternative to Defamation' 'partnership Capacity and Joinder' 'pleading Material Facts']

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

Strike Out Application / Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Amended Statement of Claim Filed on 29 December 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim properly commenced proceedings on behalf of partnerships in conformity with Pt8 r3.' 'Whether a cause of action in negligence was available where the alleged damage arose through publication of material said to be damaging.' 'Whether the amended statement of claim conformed with Pt15 pleading requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim was struck out because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the partnership claims were not properly constituted under Pt8 r3, and an amendment relying on negligence would be futile because the alleged damage arose from publication and was properly a matter for defamation rather than a negligence duty in the circumstances pleaded.

Court Disposition

Amended Statement of Claim struck out and the action dismissed; costs reserved; stood over for mention.

Orders

  • ['That the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 29 December 1999 be struck out and the action dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.' 'Stood over for mention on 3 August 2000 at 9.00 am.']