Franchise Central & Ors v Fairfax Media & Anor

The case before the court was between Franchise Central and two other plaintiffs, and Fairfax Media along with another defendant. The dispute revolved around defamation claims, with the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants had published defamatory material about them. The legal issues at hand included whether the published material was capable of giving rise to the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs, whether these imputations were defective in form, and if they were too vague and ambiguous. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiffs should have pleaded the imputations in the passive voice and whether it was permissible to draw an inference on an inference.

The court examined the allegations and found that the published material was indeed capable of giving rise to the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs. However, some of the imputations were considered to be bad in form. The court also concluded that while some of the imputations were embarrassingly vague and ambiguous, others were not. Regarding the use of the passive voice, the court held that it was not a requirement in defamation pleadings. Finally, the court ruled that it was permissible to draw an inference on an inference, provided it was supported by the material.

Based on these findings, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim, in the form of the eighth statement of claim, and amended in conformity with the reasons provided. The second and third plaintiffs were also required to provide further and better particulars of paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim, in compliance with certain requests made by the defendants. All questions of costs were reserved.