GRIFFITH & ORS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ORS [2004] NSWSC 66

GRIFFITH & ORS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ORS [2004] NSWSC 66

Many pleaded imputations were not reasonably capable of being carried because the matters complained of did not convey the necessary defamatory concepts such as danger, threat to the community, tyranny, hypocrisy, brainwashing, deception, mind control, or dangerous lunacy. The imputations expressly identified by the Court as capable, including those concerning delusion, male chauvinism, indoctrination, unreasonable demands tearing families apart, and foolish belief in ludicrous ideas, should go to the jury. Paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim was struck out because no republication in fact was pleaded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations for Capacity and Form, Including Strike Out of Paragraph 16 of the Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application substantially determined in favour of the defendants on many imputations, with specified imputations permitted to go to the jury; paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim struck out; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'republication' 'strike Out']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'republication' 'strike Out']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations for Capacity and Form, Including Strike Out of Paragraph 16 of the Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sydney Morning Herald matter complained of was capable of carrying the pleaded imputations and whether those imputations were capable of being defamatory of the plaintiffs.' 'Whether the CultAware Newsletter matter complained of was capable of carrying the pleaded imputations and whether those imputations were capable of being defamatory of the first, second and third plaintiffs.' 'Whether pleaded true innuendo imputations based on the Waco extrinsic fact were capable of being carried.' 'Whether paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim should be struck out for failure to plead any republication in fact.' 'Whether objections to the form of certain imputations, including reliance on the whole matter complained of, should be upheld.']

Ratio Decidendi

Many pleaded imputations were not reasonably capable of being carried because the matters complained of did not convey the necessary defamatory concepts such as danger, threat to the community, tyranny, hypocrisy, brainwashing, deception, mind control, or dangerous lunacy. The imputations expressly identified by the Court as capable, including those concerning delusion, male chauvinism, indoctrination, unreasonable demands tearing families apart, and foolish belief in ludicrous ideas, should go to the jury. Paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim was struck out because no republication in fact was pleaded.

Court Disposition

Application substantially determined in favour of the defendants on many imputations, with specified imputations permitted to go to the jury; paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim struck out; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The following imputations shall go to the jury in accordance with my reasons: 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 6(e), 6(h), 7(b), 8(e), 12(a), 12(c), 13(a), 14(a), 14(d).' 'In relation to the following imputations verdicts will be entered for the first and second defendants in accordance with my reasons: 6(b), 6(f), 6(g), 6(i),...