Sali v ABC (Ruling No 2)

In this case, Sali, the plaintiff, brought a defamation action against the ABC, the defendant, in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought damages for defamation caused by articles published in two ABC radio programs, including one broadcast on ABC Local Radio. The articles alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff had been involved in corrupt activities in relation to a significant public contract. The defendant raised several defences, including justified conflict of interest imputation and contextual truth.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the defendant could plead and prove a wider general imputation than the one initially pleaded by the plaintiff. The court also considered whether the defendant could particularise instances of conflict of interest that occurred prior to publication but were not known to the defendant at the time. The court further examined whether the defendant could object to the production of documents that were not in existence at the time of publication, and whether the defendant could object to the plaintiff's proposed further particulars of defence made by the subpoenaed party.

The court held that the defendant could plead and prove a wider general imputation than the one initially pleaded by the plaintiff. The court also held that the defendant could particularise instances of conflict of interest that occurred prior to publication but were not known to the defendant at the time. The court further held that the defendant could object to the production of documents that were not in existence at the time of publication, and that the defendant could object to the plaintiff's proposed further particulars of defence made by the subpoenaed party. The court also granted the defendant leave to amend its particulars to include the wider general imputation.

The court made several orders, including that the defendant could object to the production of documents that were not in existence at the time of publication, and that the subpoenas be confined to documents existing at the date of publication. The court also ordered that the defendant could object to the plaintiff's proposed further particulars of defence made by the subpoenaed party, and that the defendant be given leave to amend its particulars to include the wider general imputation.