Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc

The case of Hewitt v ATP Tour Inc involved a dispute between professional tennis player Lleyton Hewitt and ATP Tour Inc, the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action in the Supreme Court of South Australia alleging breaches of contract, defamation, and injurious falsehood. The core of the dispute was centred on alleged breaches of promotional obligations under a contract between the parties, along with defamatory and injurious statements made by the defendant, which were alleged to have been published and republished in various jurisdictions, including the United States and potentially on the internet.

The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues, including whether the plaintiff's allegations of defamation and injurious falsehood were appropriately pleaded, whether the court needed to identify the applicable law (lex loci delicti) for each alleged publication and republication, and what standard of particularity was required for the plaintiff's claims. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate test for determining whether the pleaded imputations were appropriate, the extent to which the lex loci delicti must be pleaded, and the extent to which actual losses must be pleaded in the case of injurious falsehood. Additionally, the court needed to address whether general damages were available for an action of injurious falsehood and the appropriate measure for damages related to a general loss of business.

The court found that while some imputations in the Statement of Claim were not appropriately pleaded, they could be struck out with liberty to replead. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not required to identify the lex loci delicti for internet publications, as the primary place of publication was considered to be the location where the publication was accessed by the majority of readers. Furthermore, the court held that general damages were not available for an action of injurious falsehood, and the plaintiff needed to plead actual losses with particularity. The court struck out certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim but allowed the plaintiff to replead them with further particularity. The remaining applications were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim were struck out with liberty to replead, with the requirement for further particularity, and that the remaining applications were dismissed.