Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4)

In Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 4), the plaintiff sought to amend their defamation claim against a source quoted in a newspaper article published by the defendants. The plaintiff's original claim against the source was statute-barred, but they sought to amend the claim against the source to be based on the same facts as their existing pleading against the original publisher. The plaintiff argued that the source was liable for the entire article due to the defamatory nature of their statement.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment was arguable on the merits, particularly in light of the existing pleading against the original publisher. The court also considered the defendants' application to amend their defences to include a new contextual imputation. The court determined whether the proposed new contextual imputation could arise from the article and whether it was a reasonable defence.

The court found that the plaintiff's proposed amendment was not arguable on the merits because it was based on the same facts as the existing pleading against the original publisher, which was statute-barred. The court also found that the defendants' proposed amendment to include a new contextual imputation was capable of arising from the article and could be a reasonable defence. The court granted the defendants leave to amend their defences but denied the plaintiff's application to amend their claim against the source.

The court ordered that the defendants were permitted to amend their defences to include the new contextual imputation and that the plaintiff's application to amend their claim against the source was dismissed.