Gair v Greenwood [2017] NSWSC 1652

Gair v Greenwood [2017] NSWSC 1652

The particulars pleaded in support of truth for Mr Gair's imputations 7(a) and 7(b) did not address, or were too vague to prove, the essential element of dishonestly influencing the outcome of development applications, and therefore were incapable of proving those imputations. The particulars for Mr Turland's imputation 9(b) contained no allegation of bribery or bargain and were incapable of proving that he bribed the Mayor to obtain favourable outcomes for development applications. However, the remaining particulars were capable of supporting the broader imputations that Mr Gair was a racketeer and Mr Turland was a crook, because those imputations could be proved by dishonest conduct...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Plaintiffs to Strike Out Parts of the Defence
Outcome
Application allowed in part; defence of truth in respect of imputations 7(a), 7(b) and 9(b) struck out, and contextual imputations (ii) and (iv) struck out.
Legal Topics
['justification' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'capacity of Particulars to Prove Truth' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' 'strike Out Application']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['justification' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'capacity of Particulars to Prove Truth' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' 'strike Out Application']

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 Application by the Plaintiffs to Strike Out Parts of the Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the particulars of justification were insufficiently precise or irrelevant so that parts of the defence should be struck out.' 'Whether the particulars, taken at their highest, were capable of proving the substantial truth of imputations 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) concerning Mr Gair.' 'Whether the particulars, taken at their highest, were capable of proving the substantial truth of imputations 8(a) and 9(b) concerning Mr Turland.' "Whether contextual imputations that each plaintiff is a criminal or dishonest were capable of being conveyed in addition to the plaintiffs' imputations." 'Whether the Court should determine capacity to convey the criminal contextual imputations where the matter complained of was an audio-visual publication not tendered at the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars pleaded in support of truth for Mr Gair's imputations 7(a) and 7(b) did not address, or were too vague to prove, the essential element of dishonestly influencing the outcome of development applications, and therefore were incapable of proving those imputations. The particulars for Mr Turland's imputation 9(b) contained no allegation of bribery or bargain and were incapable of proving that he bribed the Mayor to obtain favourable outcomes for development applications. However, the remaining particulars were capable of supporting the broader imputations that Mr Gair was a racketeer and Mr Turland was a crook, because those imputations could be proved by dishonest conduct...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; defence of truth in respect of imputations 7(a), 7(b) and 9(b) struck out, and contextual imputations (ii) and (iv) struck out.

Orders

  • ['The defence of truth in respect of imputations 7(a), 7(b) and 9(b) be struck out.' 'Contextual imputations (ii) and (iv) be struck out.' 'The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to reflect the reasons and for the future conduct of the proceedings.']