Moss v Random House Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1189

Moss v Random House Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1189

The pleaded imputations were materially ambiguous where they did not state whether the plaintiff was alleged to have acted knowingly in relation to corrupt, criminal or illegal conduct. Because such ambiguity was apt to cause confusion at the pleadings stage and trial, the imputations had to be clarified, struck out...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Arising Out of Publication of a Book Titled "he Who Must Be Obeid: the Untold Story" / Rulings on Objections to the Form of Pleaded Imputations; Capacity Objections Deferred
Outcome
Objections to form upheld; capacity objections deferred until after the pleading is brought into order.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'imputations' 'objections as to Form' 'ambiguity' 'capacity']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'imputations' 'objections as to Form' 'ambiguity' 'capacity']

Source-derived case record

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 Arising Out of Publication of a Book Titled "he Who Must Be Obeid: the Untold Story" / Rulings on Objections to the Form of Pleaded Imputations; Capacity Objections Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the pleaded imputations were ambiguous as to the plaintiff's knowledge of alleged corruption, criminality or illegality" 'Whether imputation (b) and imputation (d), as clarified or amended, differed in substance or should be pleaded as alternatives' 'Whether the Court should determine capacity after considering the whole or substantially the whole of the matter complained of']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded imputations were materially ambiguous where they did not state whether the plaintiff was alleged to have acted knowingly in relation to corrupt, criminal or illegal conduct. Because such ambiguity was apt to cause confusion at the pleadings stage and trial, the imputations had to be clarified, struck out with leave to re-plead, rejected with leave to re-plead, or pleaded as alternatives where necessary. Capacity should be addressed only after the pleading is brought into proper form and the Court has considered the matter complained of in context.

Court Disposition

Objections to form upheld; capacity objections deferred until after the pleading is brought into order.

Orders

  • ['Imputation (a) should be clarified, including by inserting "knowingly" before "facilitated" or otherwise as those advising the plaintiff see fit.' 'Imputation (b) must be struck out for ambiguity with leave to re-plead, or should be pleaded as an alternative to imputation (d) with amendments making clear the...