Menulog Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 908

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Menulog Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 908 Hearing dates: 6 August 2012 Decision date: 10 August 2012 Before: McCallum J Decision: Plaintiff ordered to provide further particulars Catchwords: TORT - injurious falsehood - malice - content of requirement to establish actual damage where only injunctive relief sought - adequacy of particulars Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 21.10 Cases Cited: Australand Holdings Limited v Transparency & Accountability Council Inc [2008] NSWSC 669 AMI Australia Holdings v Fairfax Media Publications [2010] NSWSC 1395 Bass v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [No 2] [2006] NSWCA 343 Gross v Weston [2007] NSWCA 1; (2007) 69 NSWLR 279 Mahon v Mach 1 Financial Services Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 651 Menulog Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 247 Menulog Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd 2 [2012] NSWSC 440 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Menulog Pty Limited (plaintiff) TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Sibtain (plaintiff) J Hmelnitsky (defendant) Solicitors: Diamond Conway (plaintiff) Johnson Winter Slattery (defendant) File Number(s): 2012/85898 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1These are proceedings for injurious falsehood. The plaintiff, Menulog Pty Limited, conducts an on-line business providing restaurant ordering services. In March of this year, Channel Nine prepared a television article titled "Home Delivery Food Con" concerning the conduct of that business. The article told the story of a food substitution scam allegedly run by Menulog in which orders placed on its website for one restaurant would be filled from another. 2The story was promoted for broadcast on "A Current Affair" on 16 March 2012. Within hours before the scheduled broadcast, Menulog commenced these proceedings and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of the story. The only relief now sought by Menulog is the permanent continuation of that injunction. 3Channel Nine has sought further and better particulars of Menulog's claim, which Menulog has refused to provide. This judgment determines Channel Nine's application for an order that further particulars be provided.