Arman v Nationwide News Pty Limited

Arman v Nationwide News Pty Limited was a defamation case heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Arman, alleged defamation against the defendant, Nationwide News, in relation to articles published in the Daily Telegraph. The plaintiff sought to establish that the articles were defamatory, that they were published maliciously, and that they caused damage to his reputation. The defendant argued that the articles were honest opinions protected by qualified privilege, or if not, that the plaintiff consented to the publication.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether consent was a defence to defamation known to the law, and whether pleading such a defence could amount to malice. The court also needed to decide whether the defence of consent applied where the plaintiff was a minor, and whether particulars of malice needed to be verified when dishonesty was alleged in relation to the defence of honest opinion or qualified privilege. The court considered whether the plaintiff had adequately pleaded malice in relation to the defendant's refusal or failure to give permission for the taking of photographs and/or film.

The court found that the pleading of consent as a defence did not amount to malice as it was a recognised defence to defamation. However, the court struck out certain paragraphs of the Reply as they did not provide sufficient particulars of malice. The court held that the particulars of malice in relation to the defence of honest opinion where the defendant was alleged to know the journalist did not hold the opinion, and in relation to the defence of statutory qualified privilege, needed to be verified where dishonesty was alleged. The court also found that the defence of consent did not apply where the plaintiff was a minor. The court granted leave to the plaintiff to rely upon a particular “unfair and misleading headlines” in the Reply but struck out the words “and photographs”. The court ordered the plaintiff to file an Amended Reply within 14 days, deleting the passages struck out and withdrawn, amending the opening sentence of paragraph 3 and containing any particular of malice in relation to any asserted refusal or other failure to give permission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.

The court made several orders, including that certain paragraphs of the Reply be struck out, that the plaintiff file an Amended Reply within 14 days, and that the parties serve categories of documents for discovery, verified Lists of Documents, and verified answers to interrogatories by specified dates. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs and listed the proceedings for further directions in the Defamation List.