Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Laming v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 63 File number: NSD 873 of 2021
Judgment of: BROMWICH J
Date of judgment: 28 January 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for part of the respondent's defence to be stuck-out – whether the contextual imputations pleaded as part of the defence were too imprecise and ambiguous to be a contextual imputation – whether the contextual imputation comprising of the word "creep" to describe the applicant's character is too imprecise and ambiguous – whether the honest opinion defence is a defence for the pleaded imputation or the entire published defamatory matter – held: application granted in part
Legislation: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 26, 30, 31
Cases cited: Domican v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1384 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; 189 CLR 520 McLachlan v Browne (No 7) [2018] NSWSC 1914
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 23
Date of hearing: 28 January 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: S Chrysanthou SC, B Dean
Solicitor for the Applicant: Company Giles Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondents: L Barnett
Solicitor for the Respondents: Banki Haddock Fiora
ORDERS NSD 873 of 2021
BETWEEN: ANDREW LAMING Applicant
AND: NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD First Respondent
TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD Second Respondent
order made by: BROMWICH J DATE OF ORDER: 28 January 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
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