Sydney Securities v iGuard Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1657
The alleged John Holland Group communication should not be struck out at this stage because the plaintiff pleaded it on instructions concerning a conversation with an identified employee and no interrogatory had yet been directed to the individual defendant whom the plaintiff suspected of authoring the representations; further interlocutory steps remained available. The impugned representations using "complicit" were not shown to be ambiguous when read in context. The plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs thrown away by the two amendments, but there was no sufficient unreasonable conduct or other feature warranting that those costs be payable forthwith. The matter should proceed to...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 September 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Defendants' Objections to Further Amended Statement of Claim Filed 6 September 2017 and Costs
- Outcome
- Proceedings referred for mediation; defendants' objections resolved without striking out the pleaded John Holland Group communication; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs thrown away by the specified amended pleadings; no order for those costs to be payable forthwith; each party to bear its or his own costs...
- Legal Topics
- ['pleadings' 'publication' 'summary Dismissal or Striking Out' 'interrogatories' 'mediation' 'costs Thrown Away' 'costs Payable Forthwith']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Defendants' Objections to Further Amended Statement of Claim Filed 6 September 2017 and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the pleading of an alleged communication to John Holland Group Pty Ltd should be struck out where the plaintiff did not have a copy of the alleged email and could not further specify its contents.' 'Whether representations using the word "complicit" were ambiguous in the context of the publications sued on.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs thrown away by amendments to the pleading." 'Whether costs should be payable forthwith.' 'Whether the proceedings should be referred to mediation.']
Ratio Decidendi
The alleged John Holland Group communication should not be struck out at this stage because the plaintiff pleaded it on instructions concerning a conversation with an identified employee and no interrogatory had yet been directed to the individual defendant whom the plaintiff suspected of authoring the representations; further interlocutory steps remained available. The impugned representations using "complicit" were not shown to be ambiguous when read in context. The plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs thrown away by the two amendments, but there was no sufficient unreasonable conduct or other feature warranting that those costs be payable forthwith. The matter should proceed to...
Court Disposition
Proceedings referred for mediation; defendants' objections resolved without striking out the pleaded John Holland Group communication; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs thrown away by the specified amended pleadings; no order for those costs to be payable forthwith; each party to bear its or his own costs...
Orders
- ['The defendants are directed to file a defence within 21 days.' 'Pursuant to s 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the proceedings are referred for mediation by a mediator of the Court.' 'The parties are directed to use their best endeavours to hold the mediation within six weeks after the filing of the...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment