Craftsman Homes Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 555

Craftsman Homes Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 555

The statement of claim had serious pleading deficiencies, particularly as to identification and the basis for liability of the fourth to ninth defendants, requiring amendment. However, the challenged imputations were generally capable: imputation 6(c) was capable of arising from the promo and differed in substance from the other imputations; the second program was not presently incapable of being published of and concerning the first plaintiff; and imputations 8(a) to 8(e) were capable in the respects challenged. Leave to amend was therefore granted, with each party to bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Objections to Pleading and Trial of Capacity Issues
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted leave to file an amended statement of claim; each party to bear its own costs; proceedings stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['multiple Defendants' 'liability for Publication' 'pleading and Particularisation' 'identification' 'imputations' 'capacity']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['multiple Defendants' 'liability for Publication' 'pleading and Particularisation' 'identification' 'imputations' 'capacity']

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 Objections to Pleading and Trial of Capacity Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs had properly pleaded and particularised identification in respect of the publications.' 'Whether the plaintiffs had pleaded and particularised a basis on which the fourth to ninth defendants could be liable for the whole publications or for republication.' 'Whether imputation 6(c) from the promo was capable of arising and differed in substance from imputations 6(a) and 6(b).' 'Whether the second matter complained of was incapable of being published of and concerning the first plaintiff.' 'Whether imputations 8(a) and 8(b) were capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether the second matter complained of was capable of carrying imputations 8(c), 8(d) and 8(e) of the first plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim had serious pleading deficiencies, particularly as to identification and the basis for liability of the fourth to ninth defendants, requiring amendment. However, the challenged imputations were generally capable: imputation 6(c) was capable of arising from the promo and differed in substance from the other imputations; the second program was not presently incapable of being published of and concerning the first plaintiff; and imputations 8(a) to 8(e) were capable in the respects challenged. Leave to amend was therefore granted, with each party to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted leave to file an amended statement of claim; each party to bear its own costs; proceedings stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['The Plaintiffs have leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with these reasons within 21 days.' 'Each of the plaintiffs and defendants are to pay its and their own costs.' "The matter is stood over for further directions in the Registrar's Defamation List on 26 July 2002."]