Louise v DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd - [2014] NSWDC 177

District Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Louise v DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWDC 177

Hearing Date(s): 23 October 2014

Decision Date: 23 October 2014

Jurisdiction: Civil

Before: Gibson DCJ

Decision:
(1) Imputations 4(a) and 4(b) are to be pleaded in the alternative and will go to the jury.
(2) Imputations 4(c), 4(d), 6(a) and 6(b) will go to the jury.
(3) Imputations 4(e), 6(c) and 6 (d) are struck out.
(4) Plaintiff to file and serve Amended Statement of Claim in 14 days.
(5) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Friday 21 November 2014.
(6) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs of the argument.

Catchwords: TORT - defamation - imputations - form and capacity

Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.28

Cases Cited: Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 449
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Feros v West Sydney Radio Pty Ltd (New South Wales Court of Appeal, 22 June 1982, unreported)
Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1850
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
King v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 490
Scali v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Levine J, 15 July 1993)
Tingle & Anor v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [1999] NSWSC 414
Toben v Milne [2014] NSWCA 200
Villers v Monsley (1769) 2 Wils 403, 95 ER 886
Younan v Nationwide News [2013] NSWCA 335

Texts Cited: -

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties: Plaintiff: Rachelle Louise
First Defendant: DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd
Third Defendant: Candace Sutton

Representation

- Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen
Defendants: Mr M Richardson

- Solicitors: Plaintiff: David Leamey Solicitor & Barrister
Defendants: Johnson Winter & Slattery

File Number(s): 2014/197848

Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation for two online publications dated 5 and 17 February 2014, the text of which is set out as a schedule to this judgment. These are my reasons for rulings in relation to challenges to certain of the imputations.
The following imputations are pleaded (in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim) to arise from the first matter complained of.
(a)The plaintiff is a stripper (paragraphs 1, 8, 9).
(b)The plaintiff is an ex-stripper (paragraphs 8, 9).
(c)The plaintiff is a women [sic] of loose morals (paragraphs 1, 8, 9).
(d)The plaintiff is deluded because she believes convicted killer Simon Gittany is innocent (whole article).
(e)The plaintiff is a ridiculous person (whole article).
The imputations challenged in this publications are imputations 4(a), 4(b) and 4(e).
The following imputations are pleaded to arise (in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim) from the second matter complained of.
(a)The plaintiff is the world's most deluded woman (paragraphs 1, 7, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59).
(b)The plaintiff is deluded because she believes convicted killer Simon Gittany is innocent (paragraphs 1,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Louise v DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWDC 177
Decision Date: 23 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Louise, a well-known television personality, brought an action against DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd, the publisher of a website that published a series of articles concerning her. The articles were alleged to have defamed her, and the dispute came before the court to determine which imputations should be put before the jury. The court was required to decide whether certain imputations in the articles were defamatory and, if so, whether they were in the form and capacity alleged in the Statement of Claim.

The primary legal issues for the court to resolve were whether the imputations in question were defamatory and, if so, whether they were in the form and capacity alleged by the plaintiff. The court needed to consider the ordinary meaning of the words used, the context in which they were published, and the status of the plaintiff in the community. The imputations were to be assessed to determine whether they were in the form and capacity alleged in the Statement of Claim, and whether they were required to be pleaded in the alternative.

The court held that imputations 4(a) and 4(b) should be pleaded in the alternative and would go to the jury. Imputations 4(c), 4(d), 6(a), and 6(b) were also to go to the jury. However, imputations 4(e), 6(c), and 6(d) were struck out as they were not considered defamatory. The plaintiff was ordered to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days. The matter was stood over to the Defamation List on Friday, 21 November 2014, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the argument.

In conclusion, the court determined that some of the imputations were to be pleaded in the alternative and would go to the jury, while others were to be struck out. The plaintiff was required to amend the Statement of Claim and the matter was stood over for further proceedings. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Imputations 4(a) and 4(b) are to be pleaded in the alternative and will go to the jury.

(2) Imputations 4(c), 4(d), 6(a) and 6(b) will go to the jury.

(3) Imputations 4(e), 6(c) and 6 (d) are struck out.

(4) Plaintiff to file and serve Amended Statement of Claim in 14 days.

(5) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Friday 21 November 2014.

(6) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs of the argument.

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.

Case Title:	Louise v DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWDC 177
Hearing Date(s):	23 October 2014
Decision Date:	23 October 2014
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Imputations 4(a) and 4(b) are to be pleaded in the alternative and will go to the jury. (2) Imputations 4(c), 4(d), 6(a) and 6(b) will go to the jury. (3) Imputations 4(e), 6(c) and 6 (d) are struck out. (4) Plaintiff to file and serve Amended Statement of Claim in 14 days. (5) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Friday 21 November 2014. (6) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs of the argument.
Catchwords:	TORT - defamation - imputations - form and capacity
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.28
Cases Cited:	Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 449 Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 Feros v West Sydney Radio Pty Ltd (New South Wales Court of Appeal, 22 June 1982, unreported) Hanson-Young v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1850 Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255 King v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 490 Scali v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Levine J, 15 July 1993) Tingle & Anor v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [1999] NSWSC 414 Toben v Milne [2014] NSWCA 200 Villers v Monsley (1769) 2 Wils 403, 95 ER 886 Younan v Nationwide News [2013] NSWCA 335
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Plaintiff: Rachelle Louise First Defendant: DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd Third Defendant: Candace Sutton
Representation
- Counsel:	Plaintiff: Mr R Rasmussen Defendants: Mr M Richardson
- Solicitors:	Plaintiff: David Leamey Solicitor & Barrister Defendants: Johnson Winter & Slattery
File Number(s):	2014/197848
Publication Restriction:	None