Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 100

Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 100

Given the context and language of the oral publication, whether the words conveyed that each plaintiff was a thief or only an attempted thief was a matter for the jury, so the strike-out application was refused. The application for verified answers to particulars was also rejected for the reasons given in Moses v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 99.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceeding / First Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations 3(a)(i) and 6(a)(i) and for Verified Answers to Particulars
Outcome
Application refused; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application; matter stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Imputations' 'capacity of Defamatory Meaning' 'fall Back Imputations' 'particulars of Publication' 'verification of Particulars']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['strike Out of Imputations' 'capacity of Defamatory Meaning' 'fall Back Imputations' 'particulars of Publication' 'verification of Particulars']

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

Civil Defamation Proceeding / First Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations 3(a)(i) and 6(a)(i) and for Verified Answers to Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 3(a)(i) and 6(a)(i), alleging that each plaintiff is a thief, were capable of being conveyed by the matters complained of.' 'Whether the first defendant should have verified answers to particulars of publication where the plaintiffs could not name unnamed passers by who allegedly heard the words.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the context and language of the oral publication, whether the words conveyed that each plaintiff was a thief or only an attempted thief was a matter for the jury, so the strike-out application was refused. The application for verified answers to particulars was also rejected for the reasons given in Moses v State of New South Wales (No. 2) [2009] NSWDC 99.

Court Disposition

Application refused; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application; matter stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Application by first defendant to strike out imputations 3(a)(i) and 6(a)(i) and for verified answers to particulars refused.' "First defendant pay plaintiffs' costs of the application." 'Orders in accordance with the Short Minutes of Order filed in court.' 'Stood over for further directions to Friday 11 September...