Fierravanti-Wells v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2011] NSWDC 201

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fierravanti-Wells v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2011] NSWDC 201 Hearing dates: 13 December 2011 Decision date: 13 December 2011 Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) The defendants provide further and better particulars by 4.00pm Friday 16 December 2011 of the following: (a) Further and better particulars of paragraphs (l2) and (m1) to include facts and matters relied upon in support of the assertion in the proposed new imputation that the plaintiff's study trip was an example of the kind of "dubious" study trips that prompted Senator Joe Ludwig's enquiry, identifying those study trips and stating how the plaintiff's study trip was an example comparable to them; (b) Further and better particulars for the material in (l2) asserted to be available in Australia and the material "of little substance"; and (c) How the conclusions failed to address the stated objectives in paragraph (m1). (2) Grant the defendants leave to file an amended defence in accordance with the draft pleading attached to the affidavit of Kevin Lynch dated 9 December 2011. (3) The defendants to provide written submissions by 4.00pm Friday 16 December 2011 as to why the defendants should not pay the costs of this application. (4) Plaintiff's submissions on costs by 4.00pm Monday 19 December 2011. (5) Matter stood over for further directions to Friday 23 December 2011 at 10:00am. (6) The plaintiff answer any outstanding interrogatories (if any) by 4.00pm Thursday 22 December 2011 - (note interrogatories were administered on 25 November 2011). Catchwords: TORT - defamation - late application by defendants to plead a defence of truth at common law - availability of a "nuance" or "shades of meaning" defence - whether the defendants' proposed new imputation is properly framed - application for leave to amend granted. Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss 7A and 9 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25 and 26 Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), ss 4, 6 and 8 Cases Cited: Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174 Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1988) 193 CLR 519 Channel Seven Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Fierravanti-Wells [2011] NSWCA 246 David Syme & Co v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24 Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 699 Fairfax Publications v Zunter [2006] NSWCA 227 Fierravanti-Wells v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1338 Forrest v Chlanda [2011] NTSC 67 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock (2007) 70 NSWLR 484 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Jones [2004] NSWCA 205 JWH Group Pty Ltd v Buckeridge [2009] WASC 271 Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers [1986] 1 WLR 147 Mahommed v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 631 Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 CA Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81 Snedden v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 262 Soultanov v Age Co Ltd [2009] VSC 145 Woodger v Federal Capital Press (1997) 102 ACTR 1 Texts Cited: Professor Kenyon, "Perfecting Polly Peck: Defences of Truth and Opinion in Australian Defamation Law and Practice", (2007) University of Sydney Law Review 651 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Plaintiff: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells First Defendant: Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd Second Defendant: Jonathan Creek Representation: Plaintiff: Mr C A Evatt / Mr R Rasmussen Defendants: Mr D Sibtain Plaintiff: NJ Papallo & Co Defendants: Johnson Winter & Slattery File Number(s): 2010/100777 Publication restriction: None