Warren & Anor v Tweed Shire Council & Anor [2002] NSWSC 211

Warren & Anor v Tweed Shire Council & Anor [2002] NSWSC 211

The Statement of Claim was defective because it did not plead extrinsic facts identifying either plaintiff where the matter complained of referred only to 'James Warren & Associates'. Paragraph 5 did not plead facts capable of making the second defendant responsible for republication by the first defendant, and republication was not the natural and probable consequence of the second defendant's publication to the first defendant. Imputations 4(a) and 4(c) for each plaintiff were bad in form, and imputation 4(b) for each plaintiff was incapable of being carried because the matter complained of criticised the draft SIS rather than the author. The corporate plaintiff could not pursue...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Motions Concerning Identification, Particulars, Imputations, Aggravated Damages, and Separate Trial on Capacity Under SCR Pt 31 R 2
Outcome
Defendants' motions substantially allowed; pleading and imputations struck out in part, verdict entered for defendants on imputation 4(b) causes of action, leave given to amend, and plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['identification' 'publication and Republication' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'aggravated Damages' 'corporate Plaintiff']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['identification' 'publication and Republication' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'aggravated Damages' 'corporate Plaintiff']

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 / Defendants' Motions Concerning Identification, Particulars, Imputations, Aggravated Damages, and Separate Trial on Capacity Under SCR Pt 31 R 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Statement of Claim pleaded sufficient particulars of identification for the matter complained of to be of and concerning each plaintiff.' 'Whether paragraph 5 sufficiently pleaded publication by the second defendant and liability for republication by the first defendant.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were bad in form or incapable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether particulars of aggravated damages claiming increased hurt to feelings were available to the corporate plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was defective because it did not plead extrinsic facts identifying either plaintiff where the matter complained of referred only to 'James Warren & Associates'. Paragraph 5 did not plead facts capable of making the second defendant responsible for republication by the first defendant, and republication was not the natural and probable consequence of the second defendant's publication to the first defendant. Imputations 4(a) and 4(c) for each plaintiff were bad in form, and imputation 4(b) for each plaintiff was incapable of being carried because the matter complained of criticised the draft SIS rather than the author. The corporate plaintiff could not pursue...

Court Disposition

Defendants' motions substantially allowed; pleading and imputations struck out in part, verdict entered for defendants on imputation 4(b) causes of action, leave given to amend, and plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is struck out.' 'Imputations 4(a) and 4(c) of the first plaintiff are struck out.' 'Imputations 4(a) and 4(c) of the second plaintiff are struck out.' 'Imputation 4(b) in respect of each plaintiff as a matter of law is incapable of being carried by the matter complained of and...