Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Adeang v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] FCA 1200 File number: NSD 552 of 2016
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 10 October 2016
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 26 – Federal Court Rules 2011 – requirements for pleadings pursuant to r 16.02 – pleading of imputations and contextual imputations – consideration of principles for pleading defamatory meaning – whether imputation of suspicion must identify the holder of that suspicion – consideration of principles for pleading an imputation of suspicion – Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1983] 2 NSWLR 669 not followed and Fairfax Media Publications v Zeccola [2015] NSWCA 329 distinguished DEFAMATION – form of imputations – whether imputation pleading that plaintiff had so conducted himself as to give rise to suspicion was vague, unspecific and defective for failing to identify the person who held suspicion – need for imputation and contextual imputation to attribute an act or condition to plaintiff sufficiently related to nature and context of matter complained of DEFAMATION – whether particulars of justification and contextual truth embarrassing or defective in form – necessity for precision in particulars of truth and that they be capable of supporting pleaded imputation being justified
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 16.02 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 8, 25, 26 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)
Cases cited: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 APN New Zealand Ltd v Simunovich Fisheries Ltd [2010] 1 NZLR 315 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Hodgkinson [2005] NSWCA 190 Crosby v Kelly [2013] FCA 1343 David Syme & Co Ltd v Lloyd [1984] 3 NSWLR 346 Drummoyne Municipal Corporation v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403; 130 ER 162 Fairfax Media Publications v King [2015] NSWCA 172 Fairfax Media Publications v Zeccola [2015] NSWCA 329 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1118 Greig v WIN Television NSW Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 632 Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 2 KB 507 Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942 Jones v Skelton [1963] 63 SR (NSW) 644 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 Lloyd v David Syme & Co Ltd [1986] AC 350 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia [2003] NSWSC 245 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1983] 2 NSWLR 669 Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241 Weaver v Lloyd (1824) 2 B&C 678; 107 ER 535 Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331 Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148 Willmett v Harmer (1839) 8 C&P 695; 173 ER 678
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate