A-S v Statewide Roads Limited [2007] NSWSC 1472

A-S v Statewide Roads Limited [2007] NSWSC 1472

The plaintiff proved that the matter complained of was of and concerning him and that the second defendant published it to the council. The plaintiff did not prove that the first defendant published it, because there was no evidence of relevant knowledge or positive acceptance of responsibility and no established basis in partnership, agency, vicarious liability or corporate veil principles. The report conveyed imputations 13(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), and those imputations were defamatory. Imputation 13(f) was not conveyed because the matter complained of did not support the first part of the imputation about claimed qualifications, and the plaintiff had not pleaded or particularised a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Hearing Under Section 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974; Trial by Judge Alone
Outcome
Verdict for the first defendant with costs; verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant in respect of imputations 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); verdict for the second defendant in respect of imputation 13(f); costs between the plaintiff and second defendant reserved.
Legal Topics
['identification' 'publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'parent Company and Subsidiary Liability' 'partnership' 'agency' 'corporate Veil' 'trial Under S 7 a Defamation Act 1974']
['defamation' 'agency and Partnership' 'company Law'] ['identification' 'publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'parent Company and Subsidiary Liability' 'partnership' 'agency' 'corporate Veil' 'trial Under S 7 a Defamation Act 1974']

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 / Hearing Under Section 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974; Trial by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of was of and concerning the plaintiff.' 'Whether the first defendant and/or the second defendant published the matter complained of.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations in paragraph 13(a) to (f) of the amended statement of claim arose from the matter complained of.' 'Whether any imputations that arose were defamatory of the plaintiff.' 'Whether the first defendant was liable for publication because of common offices, common officers, common equipment, alleged partnership, agency, vicarious liability, or lifting the corporate veil.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved that the matter complained of was of and concerning him and that the second defendant published it to the council. The plaintiff did not prove that the first defendant published it, because there was no evidence of relevant knowledge or positive acceptance of responsibility and no established basis in partnership, agency, vicarious liability or corporate veil principles. The report conveyed imputations 13(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), and those imputations were defamatory. Imputation 13(f) was not conveyed because the matter complained of did not support the first part of the imputation about claimed qualifications, and the plaintiff had not pleaded or particularised a...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the first defendant with costs; verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant in respect of imputations 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); verdict for the second defendant in respect of imputation 13(f); costs between the plaintiff and second defendant reserved.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the first defendant with costs.' 'Verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant in respect of imputations 13(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).' 'Verdict for the second defendant in respect of imputation 13(f).' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs." "The question of the plaintiff's...