Arman v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 151

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Arman v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 151 Hearing dates: 22 June 2017 Date of orders: 22 June 2017 Decision date: 22 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Strike out paragraphs 2, 3(d) and 4(c) to 4(f) of the Reply. (2) Note paragraph 3(b) of the Reply is withdrawn but if pressed would have been struck out. (3) Grant leave to the plaintiff to rely upon a particular "unfair and misleading headlines" in paragraph 4(g) of the Reply but strike out the words "and photographs". (4) The plaintiff may file an Amended Reply in 14 days, deleting the passages struck out and withdrawn, amending the opening sentence of paragraph 3 and containing any particular of malice in relation to any asserted refusal or other failure to give permission for the taking of photographs and/or film, such Amended Reply to be verified by the plaintiff. (5) Parties to serve categories of documents for discovery on or before 6 July 2017. (6) Parties to serve verified Lists of Documents on or before 27 July 2017. (7) Parties to administer interrogatories on or before 17 August 2017. (8) Parties to serve verified answers to interrogatories on or before 31 August 2017. (9) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs. (10) Proceedings listed for further directions in the Defamation List at 9:00am on 7 September 2017. Catchwords: TORT – defamation – application to strike out particulars of Reply – malice alleged by reason of a defence allegedly unknown to the law – whether consent a defence known to the law – whether the pleading of such a defence could amount to malice - whether the defence of consent applies where the plaintiff is a minor – particulars of malice in relation to the defence of honest opinion where the defendant is alleged to know the journalist did not hold the opinion – particulars of malice in relation of the defence of statutory qualified privilege – allegations of dishonest conduct by journalist – requirement for particulars of Reply to be verified where dishonesty is alleged Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s 16 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 31 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 4.15 and 14.28 Cases Cited: Abbott v National Coursing Association of SA [1941] SASR 140 Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1412 Austen v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 403 Chapman v Lord Ellesmere [1932] 2 KB 431 Church of Scientology Inc v Anderson [1980] WAR 71 Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (Marion's case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 Dudzinski v Kellow [1999] FCA 390 Dudzinski v Kellow [1999] FCA 1264 Ettinghausen v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1993) A Def R 51-065 Fowler v State of New South Wales (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Levine J, 21 October 1994) Frew v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 311 Friend v Civil Aviation Authority [1998] IRLR 253 General Steel Industry Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125 Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 2000 Howe v Burden [2004] EWHC 170 Jones v. Brooks (1974) 2 WWR 729 Loveday v Sun Newspapers Ltd (1938) 59 CLR 503 Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 Moore v News of the World [1972] 1 QB 441 Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 Teichner v. Bellan (1959) 181 NYS 2nd 842 Waterhouse v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 81 White v Johnston [2015] NSWCA 18 Texts Cited: Fleming, Law of Torts, 9th ed., 1998 Halsbury's Laws of Australia (LexisNexis) Professor R. E. Brown, Brown on Defamation (Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States), Second Edition (formerly The Law of Defamation in Canada) (Carswell) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Amy Arman Defendant: Nationwide News Pty Limited Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr C A Evatt Defendant: Ms L Mullins