Tate v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2019] FCA 610

Tate v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2019] FCA 610

The Court held that Mr Tate's amended imputation A was capable of arising from the program and granted leave for him to file the further amended statement of claim, with corresponding leave for the ABC to amend its defence. Mr Tate's objections to the ABC's truth particulars mostly raised factual issues for trial rather than defects of legal capacity or sufficient particularisation. The truth particulars for imputations B, E, H and I, and most particulars for imputation D, were allowed. However, the 2016 Farice application lacked the necessary nexus to Mr Hickey's interests and therefore could not be relied upon for the truth defence to imputation D.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Pleading Dispute Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out or Disallow Pleading Particulars
Outcome
Leave was to be granted for Mr Tate and the ABC to file amended pleadings; the pleadings were not struck out to the extent sought, except that reliance on the 2016 Farice application in the ABC's particulars was to be excluded.
Legal Topics
['capacity of Imputations' 'pleading Amendments' 'strike Out Applications' 'justification and Substantial Truth' 'particulars of Truth' 'defamation Defences']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['capacity of Imputations' 'pleading Amendments' 'strike Out Applications' 'justification and Substantial Truth' 'particulars of Truth' 'defamation Defences']

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 Proceeding / Interlocutory Pleading Dispute Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out or Disallow Pleading Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Tate should have leave to further amend imputation A in his statement of claim.' 'Whether the ABC should have leave to amend its defence to meet the amended imputation.' 'Whether certain particulars of truth relied upon by the ABC in relation to imputations B, D, E, H and I were too imprecise or incapable as a matter of law of proving the pleaded imputations.' "Whether the 2016 Farice application had a sufficient nexus to imputation D to be relied upon in the ABC's truth defence." 'Whether imputations H and I required proof that Mr Tate personally, rather than the Council, kept information secret.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Mr Tate's amended imputation A was capable of arising from the program and granted leave for him to file the further amended statement of claim, with corresponding leave for the ABC to amend its defence. Mr Tate's objections to the ABC's truth particulars mostly raised factual issues for trial rather than defects of legal capacity or sufficient particularisation. The truth particulars for imputations B, E, H and I, and most particulars for imputation D, were allowed. However, the 2016 Farice application lacked the necessary nexus to Mr Hickey's interests and therefore could not be relied upon for the truth defence to imputation D.

Court Disposition

Leave was to be granted for Mr Tate and the ABC to file amended pleadings; the pleadings were not struck out to the extent sought, except that reliance on the 2016 Farice application in the ABC's particulars was to be excluded.

Orders

  • ['The parties provide draft agreed or competing orders to the Chambers of Justice Bromwich within 14 days: (a) reflecting these reasons; (b) as to how the question of costs should be determined; and (c) addressing the future conduct of the proceeding.' 'The proceeding be listed for a further case management hearing...