Massoud v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Massoud v Fox Sports Australia Pty Ltd

(2022) 109 NSWLR 468; [2022] NSWCA 150

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Justification
3. › Substantial truth
4. › Misstatement of precise words used
5. › Whether imputation substantially true where publication reported 'slit throat' when actual words were 'rip your head off and shit down your throat'
6. › Significance of conditionality and impossibility of literal meaning
7. › Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 25
1. Defamation
2. › Imputations
3. › Whether imputations conveyed by publications
4. › Plaintiff alleging alternative imputations
5. › Whether plaintiff entitled to determination that primary imputation conveyed as opposed to secondary imputation most accurately reflecting publication
6. › Single meaning rule
1. Defamation
2. › Honest opinion
3. › Fact and opinion distinction
4. › Significance of non-verbal and contextual aspects of publication
5. › Whether factual statements and opinion inextricably intermingled
6. › Whether opinion based on proper material
7. › Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 31
1. Defamation
2. › Offer of amends
3. › Whether offer constituted 'correction'
4. › Offer did not include acknowledgement of error or statement of correct position
5. › Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 15, 18

Quick Take

An offer of amends proposing to publish a "correction" must include an acknowledgement of error and a statement of the correct position; merely adding the plaintiff's version of events is insufficient. Substantial truth may be established even where the precise words reported differ from those actually spoken, provided the sting is the same.