NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : JAMES v FADDOUL [2008] NSWSC 176
HEARING DATE(S) : 8 February 2008
JUDGMENT DATE : 5 March 2008
JUDGMENT OF : Latham J
DECISION : The Motion is dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS : DEFAMATION - application to strike out defence pleadings - UCPR 4.15 - whether pleadings scandalous, oppressive or an abuse of process - relevance of pleadings to defence of truth and to contextual imputations - capacity of contextual imputations to arise from published material
LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 2005
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
James v Faddoul [2007] NSWSC 821 General Steele Industries Incorporated v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Edward Hayson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 763 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock [2007] NSWCA 364 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW ; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27 ; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Millington v Loring (1880) 6 QBD 190 CASES CITED : Cavill Business Solutions v Jackson (2005) WASC 138 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52 Kelly v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 586 Shari-Lea Hitchcock v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 7 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Phillip Morris Limited (1984) 156 CLR 414 ; [1984] HCA 73 Maisel v Financial Times (1915) 112 LT 953 Allen v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd NSWSC (unreported) 2/12/88 James & Anor. v Faddoul & Anor. [2006] NSWSC 1330
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