Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3)

The case of Mohareb v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 3) involved the plaintiff, a former minister in the Australian government, suing the defendant, a media company, for defamation. The dispute centred around an article published by the defendant which quoted an email from the plaintiff but also included additional material that was allegedly defamatory. The plaintiff sought to sue the Attorney General for the newspaper article as a separate cause of action, rather than relying on the republication of the quotes as a matter going only to damages.

The legal issue before the court was whether it was open to the plaintiff to plead a case against the Attorney General for the newspaper article as a separate cause of action. The court had to consider whether the publication of the allegedly defamatory material in the article was independent of the republication of the quotes provided by the Attorney General, or whether it was merely a republication of the quotes that had already been attributed to the plaintiff. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff could bring a claim against the Attorney General for the publication of the allegedly defamatory material in the article, or whether the claim was limited to the republication of the quotes.

The court held that it was open to the plaintiff to plead a case against the Attorney General for the newspaper article as a separate cause of action. The court found that the publication of the allegedly defamatory material in the article was not merely a republication of the quotes provided by the Attorney General, but was an independent publication of the material. The court held that the plaintiff could bring a claim against the Attorney General for the publication of the allegedly defamatory material in the article, rather than relying on the republication of the quotes as a matter going only to damages. The court also found that the plaintiff had established the elements of defamation, including that the material was published, was about the plaintiff, and was defamatory.

The court ordered that the case proceed to trial to determine whether the defendant was liable for defamation and, if so, the extent of any damages that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.