Hun v Aljazeera International (Malaysia) SDN BHD (No 3) [2024] FCA 1261

Hun v Aljazeera International (Malaysia) SDN BHD (No 3) [2024] FCA 1261

The justification defences to all three imputations were struck out for want of sufficient factual particularisation, being vague and incapable of justifying the serious imputations, and for causing prejudice and embarrassment. The public interest defence and plea of 'bad general reputation' in mitigation were not struck out and should be considered at trial.

Parties
Applicant: To Hun; First Respondent: Al Jazeera International (Malaysia) SDN.BHD; Second Respondent: Mary Ann Jolley; Third Respondent: David Boyle; Fourth Respondent: Shaun Turton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application—application to Strike Out Defences and for Leave to Amend Defence
Outcome
Respondents' application for leave to file amended defence dismissed. Particular paragraphs of defence struck out. Remainder of applications dismissed. Leave given to file amended Schedule 2. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Defences, Particularisation of Defences, Public Interest Defence, Mitigation of Damages, Parliamentary Privilege
Defamation Striking Out Defences Particularisation of Defences Public Interest Defence Mitigation of Damages Parliamentary Privilege

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 6 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

To Hun

Applicant

Al Jazeera International (Malaysia) SDN.BHD

First Respondent

Mary Ann Jolley

Second Respondent

David Boyle

Third Respondent

Shaun Turton

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application—application to Strike Out Defences and for Leave to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amended defence disclosed a proper justification defence to imputations of criminal conduct and public interest defences under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
  2. 2 Whether particulars infringed Parliamentary privilege
  3. 3 Whether to strike out pleas in mitigation of damages including bad general reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The justification defences to all three imputations were struck out for want of sufficient factual particularisation, being vague and incapable of justifying the serious imputations, and for causing prejudice and embarrassment. The public interest defence and plea of 'bad general reputation' in mitigation were not struck out and should be considered at trial.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for leave to file amended defence dismissed. Particular paragraphs of defence struck out. Remainder of applications dismissed. Leave given to file amended Schedule 2. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The respondents' interlocutory application dated 19 April 2024 seeking leave to file the proposed amended defence be dismissed.
  • Paragraphs [31] and [34(a)] of the respondents' defence filed 21 April 2023 be struck out.