Pryor v Latham [2015] NSWSC 529

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pryor v Latham [2015] NSWSC 529 Hearing dates: 1 May 2015 Date of orders: 08 May 2015 Decision date: 08 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Imputations (c) and (d) struck out. Imputations (a), (b) and (f) ruled to be capable of arising from the matter complained of. Catchwords: DEFAMATION – procedure – pleadings – objections to imputations – rulings as to the capacity of the matter complained of to convey the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff – consideration of the ordinary reasonable reader's understanding of the discourse of gender politics Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.30, 28.2 Cases Cited: Jackson v Fairfax [1981] 1 NSWLR 36 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Lisa Pryor (Plaintiff) Mark Latham (First Defendant) Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Richardson (Plaintiff) T Blackburn SC (Defendants)

Solicitors: Kennedys (Plaintiff) Banki Haddock Fiora (Defendants) File Number(s): 2015/94242 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation arising from the publication of an article written for the Australian Financial Review by Mr Mark Latham, a former leader of the Federal Australian Labor Party and now a regular columnist. The article was published under the headline "Why left feminists don't like kids" and focused on an earlier article written in the Sydney Morning Herald by the plaintiff, Ms Lisa Pryor, also a regular columnist. According to Mr Latham's piece, Ms Pryor had said in her article that the only way she can cope with "raising two small children while studying medicine full-time" is through "caffeine and anti-depressants". This was described as her standard answer to the question, "How do you do it all?" 2. Mr Latham's article states that, after reading those remarks, he felt depressed himself "at the thought of a Fairfax columnist describing one of life's great responsibilities, the raising of infant children, as requiring 'neurochemical assistance'". Mr Latham asked, rhetorically, "Why do people like this have children in the first place? How will the children feel when they grow up and learn that they pushed their mother onto anti-depressants?" 3. The article continues with a "broader political point" about "left feminist campaigning", which Mr Latham contends has involved the demonisation of children. Invoking his own experience as the primary carer of his three children (in what might be termed something of a "fatherhood statement"), Mr Latham opines that inner-city feminists (of whom he is evidently not one) know little of the parenting joys he describes. He states, "more often than not, they don't like children and don't want to be with them. They use political feminism as a release valve, trying to free themselves from nature's way". In the context of the impassioned fatherhood statement, the reference to "nature's way" is obscure. 4. Ms Pryor claims that Mr Latham's article was defamatory of her.