Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1536

Sharp v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1536

Imputations 10.1 and 10.3 were incapable of arising because the suggestion that the plaintiffs misappropriated money could only be derived by a strained reading requiring multiple unsupported inferences from the matter complained of. Imputation 10.4 was incapable of arising because the pleaded allegation of dishonesty did not match the matter complained of, which at most conveyed nepotism, and because it did not suggest a positive election by Mr Issa between Mr Boulous and an existing more deserving and better qualified candidate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / First Listing Under Practice Note SC CL 4; Procedural Ruling on Pleadings, Imputations and Capacity
Outcome
Imputations 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4 ruled incapable of arising; plaintiffs granted leave to re-plead; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the relevant listings.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'imputations' 'capacity' 'ordinary Reasonable Listener' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'imputations' 'capacity' 'ordinary Reasonable Listener' 'costs']

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 Action / First Listing Under Practice Note SC CL 4; Procedural Ruling on Pleadings, Imputations and Capacity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 10.1 and 10.3, alleging reasonable suspicion of misappropriating money belonging to Parramatta Rugby League Club, were reasonably capable of arising from the third matter complained of.' 'Whether imputation 10.4, alleging dishonesty by Mr Issa in appointing John Boulous as interim CEO, was reasonably capable of arising from the matter complained of.' 'Whether leave should be granted to re-plead the imputations ruled incapable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 10.1 and 10.3 were incapable of arising because the suggestion that the plaintiffs misappropriated money could only be derived by a strained reading requiring multiple unsupported inferences from the matter complained of. Imputation 10.4 was incapable of arising because the pleaded allegation of dishonesty did not match the matter complained of, which at most conveyed nepotism, and because it did not suggest a positive election by Mr Issa between Mr Boulous and an existing more deserving and better qualified candidate.

Court Disposition

Imputations 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4 ruled incapable of arising; plaintiffs granted leave to re-plead; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs of the relevant listings.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4 will not go to the tribunal of fact.' 'Plaintiffs have leave to re-plead those imputations and to file an amended statement of claim in accordance with the matters the subject of argument.' "Plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs of the listing on 18 September 2015 and of 2...