Ahmed v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal by Mr. Ahmed against a decision of Nicholas J, who had struck out certain imputations pleaded in Mr. Ahmed's defamation action against John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute concerned whether the matters complained of in the publication were reasonably capable of conveying the defamatory imputations Mr. Ahmed alleged to the ordinary reasonable reader.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Nicholas J had erred in striking out eight of the ten causes of action pleaded by Mr. Ahmed. This required the Court to determine whether the ordinary reasonable reader would interpret the published material in the sense contended for by Mr. Ahmed, thereby giving rise to the alleged defamatory imputations.

The Court of Appeal found that Nicholas J had erred in his assessment. Applying the principles of defamation law, the Court concluded that the ordinary reasonable reader would indeed understand the matters complained of in the way Mr. Ahmed had pleaded. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in relation to specific imputations, restoring those causes of action. The Court also made observations regarding the judicial obligation to provide reasons for decisions.

The Court ordered that leave to appeal be granted, and that the appeal be allowed in respect of imputations 3(d), (e), (g), (h), (i), and (m), and 5(e) and (g). John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. However, leave to appeal was refused concerning Nicholas J's order striking out particulars of aggravated damages, and Mr. Ahmed was ordered to pay the costs of that specific application.