McBride v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 717

McBride v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 717

The contextual truth defence was fairly arguable and not liable to be struck out. Although contextual imputation 9(a) was no more serious than one plaintiff imputation and less serious than another, the defendant's contextual imputations, particularly with the additional particulars concerning alleged falsification in the 1982 AJBS article and admissions before the Medical Tribunal, were capable collectively of so affecting the plaintiff's reputation that the plaintiff's imputations did not further injure it. The plaintiff's generally pleaded imputation 4(c) arguably allowed the defendant to rely on related facts beyond the article, and those facts bore a reasonable relationship to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Defendant's Contextual Truth Defence and Particulars Under R 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['contextual Truth' 'strike Out Application' 'imputations' 'pleadings' 'public Interest' 'substantial Truth']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Truth' 'strike Out Application' 'imputations' 'pleadings' 'public Interest' 'substantial Truth']

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 Proceedings / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Defendant's Contextual Truth Defence and Particulars Under R 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 9 and particulars P22-P28 of the amended defence, pleading contextual truth, should be struck out under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' "Whether the defendant's contextual imputations were capable of so affecting the plaintiff's reputation that the plaintiff's imputations did not further injure that reputation under s 16(2)(c) of the Defamation Act 1974." 'Whether the contextual imputations and their particulars bore a reasonable relationship to the article and were pleaded with sufficient precision.' 'Whether the defendant could rely on facts not stated in the matter complained of to justify contextual imputations pleaded in general terms.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contextual truth defence was fairly arguable and not liable to be struck out. Although contextual imputation 9(a) was no more serious than one plaintiff imputation and less serious than another, the defendant's contextual imputations, particularly with the additional particulars concerning alleged falsification in the 1982 AJBS article and admissions before the Medical Tribunal, were capable collectively of so affecting the plaintiff's reputation that the plaintiff's imputations did not further injure it. The plaintiff's generally pleaded imputation 4(c) arguably allowed the defendant to rely on related facts beyond the article, and those facts bore a reasonable relationship to the...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of this motion." "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the motion dated 27 June 2007."]