Tucker v Echo Publications P/L [2001] NSWSC 239

Tucker v Echo Publications P/L [2001] NSWSC 239

Imputation (j) was capable of arising because the publication, read as a whole, portrayed the first plaintiff as domineering and belittling and included shouting and obscene language in that context. Imputation (k) was not capable of arising in its pleaded plural form because the publication suggested discriminatory conduct only in relation to Mrs Potts, although a discriminatory attitude to female employees was available. Imputation (m) clearly arose because the publication referred to Ross Tucker as the Shire's biggest bully. Imputations (a), (c), (d) and (g) differed in substance because they alleged distinct ideas: abuse of publication power to resolve a dispute, publication of false...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations, Including Capacity and Whether Imputations Differ in Substance
Outcome
Defendants' objections were partly upheld and partly rejected; leave to amend was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['capacity of Publication to Give Rise to Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'pleading and Amendment of Imputations']
['defamation'] ['capacity of Publication to Give Rise to Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'pleading and Amendment of Imputations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations, Including Capacity and Whether Imputations Differ in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (j), alleging that the first plaintiff was a domineering employer who abused employees by belittling them and shouting at them using obscene language, was capable of arising from the publication.' 'Whether imputation (k), alleging that the first plaintiff discriminated against female employees, was capable of arising in its pleaded plural form.' 'Whether imputation (m), alleging that the first plaintiff is a bully, was capable of arising from the publication.' 'Whether imputations (a), (c), (d) and (g) differed in substance or were substantially the same allegation of bullying or intimidation through the power of publication.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to amend imputations (a), (d) and (i).']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation (j) was capable of arising because the publication, read as a whole, portrayed the first plaintiff as domineering and belittling and included shouting and obscene language in that context. Imputation (k) was not capable of arising in its pleaded plural form because the publication suggested discriminatory conduct only in relation to Mrs Potts, although a discriminatory attitude to female employees was available. Imputation (m) clearly arose because the publication referred to Ross Tucker as the Shire's biggest bully. Imputations (a), (c), (d) and (g) differed in substance because they alleged distinct ideas: abuse of publication power to resolve a dispute, publication of false...

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections were partly upheld and partly rejected; leave to amend was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff has leave to amend imputations (a), (d) and (i).' 'Imputation (j) should go to the jury.' 'Imputation (k) should not go to the jury in that form. The plaintiff has liberty to re-plead.' 'Imputation (m) should go to the jury.' 'Imputations (a), (c), (d) and (g) differ in substance and should go to the...