SAFFRON v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 574

SAFFRON v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 574

Several proposed imputations were defective because they were bad in form, duplicated another imputation, lacked foundation in the matter complained of, or were not supported by pleaded extrinsic facts. The matter complained of was capable of carrying imputations that the plaintiff had been dubbed Mr Sin because his behaviour had been consistently bad over many years and that he had an unsavoury reputation, and leave was granted to plead the permitted imputations in a further amended statement of claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Proposed Imputations, Capacity and Form
Outcome
Leave granted to file a further amended statement of claim; separate s7A jury trial ordered; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'true Innuendo' 'separate Trial by Jury Under S7 A']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'true Innuendo' 'separate Trial by Jury Under S7 A']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Proposed Imputations, Capacity and Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's proposed imputations were proper in form, capable of being carried by the matter complained of and capable of being defamatory." 'Whether the proposed true innuendo imputations were supported by the pleaded extrinsic facts.' 'Whether leave should be granted to file a further amended statement of claim and a separate s7A jury trial ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Several proposed imputations were defective because they were bad in form, duplicated another imputation, lacked foundation in the matter complained of, or were not supported by pleaded extrinsic facts. The matter complained of was capable of carrying imputations that the plaintiff had been dubbed Mr Sin because his behaviour had been consistently bad over many years and that he had an unsavoury reputation, and leave was granted to plead the permitted imputations in a further amended statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file a further amended statement of claim; separate s7A jury trial ordered; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim in accordance with paragraph [16] of these reasons within 14 days thereof.' 'The defendant is to file its s7A defence within 14 days thereafter.' 'Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2 I order a separate trial by jury pursuant to s7A of the Defamation...