Sutherland v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd

The applicants, who were former employees of a company, sought damages for defamation against the respondent, a media publisher. The applicants alleged that an article published by the respondent was defamatory of them, and sought to recover damages for the harm caused to their reputation. The applicants filed a strike out application against the respondent's defence, which included the defence of contextual truth and unlikelihood of harm. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the applicants' strike out application should succeed, and whether the respondent's defence was valid.

The court considered the applicants' argument that the respondent's defence was invalid as it did not provide a valid defence to the defamation claim. The court held that the defence of contextual truth and unlikelihood of harm was a valid defence to a defamation claim. The court held that the applicants' strike out application should be dismissed as the respondent's defence was valid. The court held that the applicants had not shown that there was no reasonable prospect that the respondent's defence would succeed at trial.

The court further held that the applicants had not established that the unlikelihood of harm defence was not available to the respondent. The court held that the unlikelihood of harm defence was available to the respondent as it was not established that the harm alleged by the applicants was likely to occur. The court held that the applicants had not established that the contextual truth defence was not available to the respondent. The court held that the applicants had not shown that the article was not substantially true in the context in which it was published.

The court dismissed the applicants' strike out application and held that the respondent's defence was valid. The court ordered that the applicants' claim for damages for defamation be stayed until the determination of the respondent's defences.