Milne v Ell [2014] NSWCA 407

Milne v Ell [2014] NSWCA 407

Leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal were refused because the proposed grounds lacked merit, raised no issue of principle, and, as to the proposed appeal, concerned a small judgment amount. Imputation (f) was correctly found to be conveyed as a true innuendo and defamatory because the admitted reputation of Mr McGurk was a relevant extrinsic fact known to recipients, and imputation (b) was clearly conveyed. The costs order that each party bear his or her own costs was within the trial judge's discretionary range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding; Applications for Leave to Appeal and Leave to Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave Applications From Ell V Milne (no 8) [2014] NSWSC 175 and Ell V Milne (no 9) [2014] NSWSC 489
Outcome
Ms Milne's application for leave to appeal dismissed; Mr Ell's application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to the costs of either application.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'innuendo' 'extrinsic Facts' 'defamatory Meaning' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Discretion']
['defamation' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['imputations' 'innuendo' 'extrinsic Facts' 'defamatory Meaning' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Discretion']

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 Proceeding; Applications for Leave to Appeal and Leave to Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave Applications From Ell V Milne (no 8) [2014] NSWSC 175 and Ell V Milne (no 9) [2014] NSWSC 489

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (f), that Mr Ell conducted his business with regard to property development by employing a person with a reputation for violence, was conveyed as a true innuendo and was defamatory.' "Whether a person's reputation can constitute an extrinsic fact relied on to support an innuendo." 'Whether imputation (b), that Mr Ell had a scandalous association with Mr McGurk, was conveyed.' 'Whether either party should have leave to appeal or cross-appeal from the order that each party bear his or her own costs at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal were refused because the proposed grounds lacked merit, raised no issue of principle, and, as to the proposed appeal, concerned a small judgment amount. Imputation (f) was correctly found to be conveyed as a true innuendo and defamatory because the admitted reputation of Mr McGurk was a relevant extrinsic fact known to recipients, and imputation (b) was clearly conveyed. The costs order that each party bear his or her own costs was within the trial judge's discretionary range.

Court Disposition

Ms Milne's application for leave to appeal dismissed; Mr Ell's application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed; no order as to the costs of either application.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss Ms Milne's application for leave to appeal, with no order as to the costs of the application." "Dismiss Mr Ell's application for leave to cross-appeal, with no order as to the costs of the application."]