Louise v DailyMail.com Australia Pty Ltd

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.