Ferrier v Nationwide News Pty Limited (No 2)

HER HONOUR: This is the first listing of proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Mark Ferrier in respect of an article published in The Australian. The statement of claim sues on two publications, the second being substantially the same article online.

Objection is taken to the imputations on a limited basis. The principal complaint is that imputations (a), (d) and (f) in respect of the first matter complained of do not differ in substance. The same point is taken in respect of the like imputations pleaded in respect of the second matter complained of.

The imputations in question are as follows:

Mr Sibtain, who appears for the defendant, submitted that although in theory a fraudster might be a different kind of person from a conman, upon consideration of the context in which the imputations are allegedly conveyed in accordance with the principles stated by Simpson J (as her Honour then was) in Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2003] NSWSC 483, those allegations could be seen to be the same in the present case.

While I accept there is some force in that submission, it seems to me that, in the circumstances of the present publication, an imputation of being a “fraudster” and a separate imputation of being a “conman” should be allowed to stand, notwithstanding the provision of r 14.30(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The opening paragraphs of the matter complained of, combined with the accusation that the plaintiff has been using aliases, suggest a degree of outright dishonest fraud whereas other parts of the matter complained of, in my view, are capable of conveying the different sense of the plaintiff's being a conman or confidence trickster. In my view, however, imputation (f) substantially replicates the allegation in imputation (a) and cannot stand as a separate imputation.

The order I would propose is that the plaintiff be required to elect as between imputations (a) and (f), or else replead imputations (a), (d) and (f) in accordance with these reasons. The same ruling applies in respect of the imputations pleaded in respect of the second matter complained of, in paragraph 6.

A separate point is that, for reasons that are unclear, in paragraph 4 imputations (a) and (b) are pleaded as alternatives whereas identical imputations in paragraph 6 (a) and (c) are not. Those imputations would appear to be appropriately pleaded as alternatives. They are:

The plaintiff should address that anomaly in any amended pleading.

Finally, the defendants complain (and the plaintiff accepts) that the plaintiff must provide particulars of his special damages claim. Those particulars should be provided within three weeks.

I direct the plaintiff to file and serve a further amended statement of claim reflecting these reasons within three weeks. The further amended statement of claim should include particulars of any special damages claimed. The defendants are to file a defence within a further three weeks.

Costs are reserved.