James v Faddoul - [2007] NSWSC 821

CITATION: James v Faddoul [2007] NSWSC 821
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 4 July 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Price J at 1

DECISION: 1. Notice of motion is dismissed. 2. The first and second defendants pay the costs of the first, second and third plaintffs of this motion.

CATCHWORDS: Civil procedure - pleadings - injurious falsehood - application to strike out.

CASES CITED: Bride v KMG Hungerfords (1991) 109 FLR 256
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Joyce v Sengupta (1993) 1 WLR 347
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Limited v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524

PARTIES: Adriana James and 2 Ors
Roberta Faddoul and Anor

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/20421

COUNSEL: Dr C Ward - plaintiffs
Mr M Richardson - defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRICE J

1 August 2007
2006/20421 Adriana James & 2 Ors v

Roberta Faddoul & Anor

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By a second further amended statement of claim (SFASOC) the first plaintiff claims damages for defamation, breach of confidence and injurious falsehood. The second plaintiff claims damages for breach of confidence and injurious falsehood whereas the claim of the third plaintiff is confined to injurious falsehood.

2 The first and second defendants by a notice of motion seek orders that the whole of the claim for injurious falsehood be struck out or in the alternative the claims for injurious falsehood by the second and third plaintiffs be struck out. The defendants contend that paragraphs 38-45 of the SFASOC disclose no reasonable cause of action. Paragraphs 38-45 plead the claims for injurious falsehood.

3 The first and second plaintiff are the two shareholders in the third plaintiff, Bluespark Pty Ltd ( Bluespark). Bluespark carries on the business in Australia of providing training and coaching in the disciplines of neuro linguistic programming, time line therapy, hypnosis and ancient huna under the registered business names Advanced Neuro Dynamics Australia (ANDA) and The Tad James Company.

4 The plaintiffs’ causes of action arise from four emails said to have been caused to be transmitted from a personal computer by the first or second defendant on 16 May 2006 to which were attached images of the first plaintiff that portrayed her in states of undress and sexually suggestive poses (hereinafter for convenience collectively referred to as the emails). The first and third emails included the words “Is this the face of NLP?” The reference to “NLP” is claimed to be a reference to neuro linguistic programming which is a training tool used by the plaintiffs.

5 The first and second plaintiffs are the sole persons responsible for the delivery of the training and coaching services by Bluespark and on their own account at locations other than in Australia. They are said to be recognised in the marketplace…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading James v Faddoul

Details

AGLC: James v Faddoul [2007] NSWSC 821
Case: [2007] NSWSC 821
Decision Date: 1 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James v Faddoul is a case involving a dispute between two parties. The plaintiff, James, initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, Faddoul, alleging injurious falsehoods made in the course of their business dealings. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged defamatory statements and also requested an order for the defendant to cease and desist from making further defamatory statements.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiff's pleadings were sufficient to disclose a cause of action for injurious falsehood. The plaintiff argued that the statements made by the defendant were false, malicious, and had caused financial loss to the plaintiff. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's claims were not adequately pleaded and sought to have the matter struck out for insufficient disclosure of the relevant facts.

The court examined the pleadings and considered whether they contained sufficient factual averments to establish a cause of action for injurious falsehood. The court noted that the plaintiff's claims were not vague or uncertain and that the defendant had sufficient particulars to enable a response. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the claims. The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings were sufficient to enable the case to proceed to trial and that the defendant would have an opportunity to address the merits of the plaintiff's claims at that time. The court did not make any orders for costs at this stage of the proceedings.

Orders