Hague v Cordiner

The case of Hague v Cordiner involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hague, and the defendant, Cordiner, regarding allegations of defamation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Hague sought to amend his statement of claim to include additional imputations of defamation against Cordiner. Cordiner, in turn, argued that some of these imputations were not reasonably capable of being conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader.

The court was tasked with determining whether certain imputations alleged by Hague were reasonably capable of being conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader. Specifically, Cordiner challenged the use of the words “captured” and “reasonably” in imputations 6(a) to 6(c) and argued that imputations 6(d) to 6(k) should be pleaded on a Chase 1/Chase 2 basis, meaning that the Chase 2 meaning should be pleaded as a fall-back to the Chase 1 meaning. The court needed to assess the validity of these challenges and decide whether the imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed as alleged.

The court found that imputations 6(a) to 6(c) were reasonably capable of being conveyed despite the use of the words “captured” and “reasonably”. The court also determined that each of the imputations 6(d) to 6(k) was reasonably capable of being conveyed, but that the Chase 2 meaning should be pleaded as a fall-back to the Chase 1 meaning. Consequently, the court ordered that Hague’s amended statement of claim be filed within seven days. Cordiner was required to file either a defence or an application for security for costs by 13 November 2019. The matter was then listed for further directions in the Defamation List on 14 November 2019. Additionally, the court ordered Cordiner to pay Hague’s costs in relation to the argument regarding the imputations.