Author Archives: Justin Castelan

Captain Dragan appeal fails: Snedden v Nationwide New Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 262

The plaintiff, Daniel Snedden, also known as Dragan Vasilykovic sued The Australian for an article published in September 2005: “Serbian Death squad commander alive and well teaching golf in Perth.” There was a trial by jury held to determine whether … Continue reading

Posted in contextual truth, News, Truth | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Morrissey show can go on: Morrissey v McNicholas & IPC Media Ltd [2011] EWHC 2738

Stephen Morrissey is an English singer and songwriter, known simply as “Morrissey”. In the 1980s, he was the lead singer of “The Smiths” and since 1989 has had a successful career as a solo artist. The New Musical Express (NME) … Continue reading

Posted in News, Strike out application | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Statement of Claim Part VIII : Franchise Central (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 379

The plaintiffs provided consultancy services in relation to franchising. In January 2008, the defendants published an article in the BRW “From building to bail out”, and a further article in February 2008, “ASIC acts on franchise accusations”. The plaintiffs started … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, imputations, News, Strike out application | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bloggers: Beware of the hyperlink: Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2010] EWHC 100 (QB)

Azad Ali worked for the English Treasury and had a few blogs. One of the blogs was called “Defeating extremism by promoting balance” where he suggested that jihad was not terrorism. In January 2009, The Daily Mail published articles in … Continue reading

Posted in imputations, News, Strike out application, Truth | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The politician’s privilege?: Wookey v Quigley [2011] WASC 227

Since Lange in 1998, politicians have no longer been the cornerstones of the defamation lawyer’s practice. The High Court decided that we have an implied right in our constitution to discuss “government and political matter” and so politicians took their … Continue reading

Posted in defences, government and political matter, News, Qualified privilege, Reciprocal duty-interest, Strike out application | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Contextual Truth and Nothing But the Truth: Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174

The contextual truth defence is the most complicated, convoluted and confusing defences available in defamation at common law. Under the 2005 Act, it means that the defendant claims this: “The words don’t mean that… they mean this other thing, which … Continue reading

Posted in contextual truth, News | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Chatroom defamation: Don’t defend and down $30,000: Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 999

The plaintiff asserted he was defamed on a blog, the defendant did not appear at Court and judgment was entered in default. On assessment of the damages, which was still done unopposed, Fullerton J found that the first blog carried … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, News, Trial | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog debate defamation: Baglow v Smith 2011 ONSC 5131, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada

Omar Khadr is a Canadian David Hicks. As a 15 year old, he was captured by American troops in Afghanistan, and he now lives in Guantanamo Bay. In the Canadian political “blogosphere”, Dr Dawg is a left-leaning blogger who believes … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, News, Qualified privilege | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Can the Judge order that the trial be without a jury? Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells [2001] NSWCA 246

The circumstances of this appeal were as follows: • the plaintiff, a Senator from NSW, was funded to go to Italy on a study trip in 2009. She wrote a 620-page report on the Australian Wool Industry; • “Today Tonight” … Continue reading

Posted in News, Trial | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Qualified privilege and Rumours in the High Court: Cush v Dillon [2011] HCA 30

On 10 August 2011, the High Court considered the question of whether qualified privilege attached to a statement (made in April 2005) to the Chairperson of a Committee known as the CMA, that: “it is common knowledge among people [on … Continue reading

Posted in News, Qualified privilege, Reciprocal duty-interest | Tagged | 1 Comment