Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd

[2008] NSWCA 300

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Whether parent company published defamatory matter authored by employee of wholly owned subsidiary
4. › Knowledge and acceptance of responsibility for publication
5. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Imputations
3. › Whether imputations conveyed by matter complained of
4. › Whether imputations defamatory
5. › Imputations disparaging professional competence
6. › Natural and ordinary meaning
7. › True innuendo distinguished from natural and ordinary meaning
1. Corporations
2. › Separate legal entity
3. › Group of companies
4. › Whether parent company and wholly owned subsidiary in partnership
5. › Whether subsidiary agent of parent
6. › Whether parent vicariously liable for subsidiary's tort
7. › Whether corporate veil should be pierced
8. › Partnership Act 1892 (NSW), s 1(1), s 10(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Self-represented litigant
4. › Whether primary judge afforded fair opportunity to prepare and present case
5. › Whether litigant aware issues to be determined
6. › Refusal of adjournment

Quick Take

A parent company is not liable for publication of defamatory material by an employee of its wholly owned subsidiary merely because the companies share premises, telephone numbers, directors and employees; there must be evidence of knowledge and positive acceptance of responsibility for publication by the parent. The recognised grounds for lifting the corporate veil (fraud, avoidance of legal obligation, under-resourcing/sham) were not established where the subsidiary operated independently and generated its own revenue. Imputations disparaging a person's professional competence, including calling an engineer 'silly' or 'useless' in the context of a critical professional report, are defamatory.