District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2013] NSWDC 206 Hearing dates: 10 October 2013 Decision date: 10 October 2013 Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: See [94]
Catchwords: TORT - defamation - plaintiff pleads ten claims for defamation - plaintiff not identified in six of the matters complained of - failure to plead particulars of identification for each publication - failure to identify which person(s) identified the plaintiff in each publication and the extrinsic facts enabling those persons to identify the plaintiff - whether plaintiff should be granted a seventh opportunity to amend her pleadings in relation to identification - imputations - whether imputations pleaded are reasonably capable of being conveyed - costs - whether an order for costs payable forthwith should be made where the interlocutory application has taken a lengthy period and the hearing of the proceedings is a long way off Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 58 and 60
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28, and 42.7Cases Cited: Aktas v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd (No 2) (2010) 241 CLR 570; [2010] HCA 47
Al-Shennag v Woodcock [2013] NSWSC 696
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Bevillesta Pty Ltd v D Tannous No 2 Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 277
Brasington v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 571
Burrows v Knightley (1987) 10 NSWLR 651
Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWCA Civ 1655
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Parras [2002] NSWCA 202
Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corp [2008] NSWCA 37
Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc v Aviation News Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 1505 (QB)
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 18
Gardener v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 10
Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWDC 63
Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2013] NSWDC 145
Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 142
Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 291
Maxwell-Smith v Warren [2007] NSWCA 270
McGrane v Channel 7 Brisbane Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 133
McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 308
Naxakis v Western General Hospital [1999] HCA 22
Palace Films Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 962
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
Steele v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1974] 2 NSWLR 348
Universal Network Communication Ltd t/as New Tang Dynasty v China Media Group (Aust) Pty Ltd & Chan [2008] NSWCA 1
Younan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 335Texts Cited: - Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Plaintiff: Dr Ratna Ghosh
First Defendant: Ninemsn Pty Ltd (ACN 077 753 461)
Second Defendant: NBN Limited (ACN 000 232 486)
Third Defendant: Katie GregoryRepresentation: Plaintiff: In Person
Defendants: Ms L Barnett
Plaintiff: In Person
First Defendant: Johnson Winter & Slattery
Second Defendant: Ashurst Australia
Third Defendant: Banki Haddock Fiora
File Number(s): 2013/88183 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The plaintiff seeks leave to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ghosh v Ninemsn Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 206
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs in this case brought ten claims for defamation against Ninemsn Pty Ltd, an internet service provider, alleging that defamatory content was published about them on a social media platform. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to identify themselves in six of the ten claims and to specify the particulars of identification for each publication. The plaintiffs also failed to identify which person(s) identified them in each publication and the extrinsic facts enabling those persons to identify them.
The court considered whether the plaintiffs should be granted a seventh opportunity to amend their pleadings in relation to identification. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been given several opportunities to amend their pleadings but had failed to adequately address the identification issues. The court also examined whether the imputations pleaded were reasonably capable of being conveyed. The court found that some of the imputations were not reasonably capable of being conveyed, and these claims were dismissed. The court further considered whether an order for costs payable forthwith should be made due to the lengthy period taken by the interlocutory application and the distant hearing of the proceedings.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed with costs to be paid forthwith. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success in their claims, and the failure to identify themselves and specify the particulars of identification for each publication was a significant impediment to their case. The court also found that the lengthy period taken by the interlocutory application and the distant hearing of the proceedings warranted an order for costs payable forthwith. The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the application.
The court considered whether the plaintiffs should be granted a seventh opportunity to amend their pleadings in relation to identification. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been given several opportunities to amend their pleadings but had failed to adequately address the identification issues. The court also examined whether the imputations pleaded were reasonably capable of being conveyed. The court found that some of the imputations were not reasonably capable of being conveyed, and these claims were dismissed. The court further considered whether an order for costs payable forthwith should be made due to the lengthy period taken by the interlocutory application and the distant hearing of the proceedings.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed with costs to be paid forthwith. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success in their claims, and the failure to identify themselves and specify the particulars of identification for each publication was a significant impediment to their case. The court also found that the lengthy period taken by the interlocutory application and the distant hearing of the proceedings warranted an order for costs payable forthwith. The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [94]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.