Andrew George Robinson v Lyn Dulcie Brighton & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1125

Andrew George Robinson v Lyn Dulcie Brighton & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1125

It was reasonably open for the plaintiff to plead the letter as a separate publication because the letter and accompanying documents differed in content, were intelligible separately, and the accompanying documents were not shown to be an inseparable component capable of changing the complexion of the pleaded imputations. Imputations 4(a) and 4(b)(i) were sufficiently precise and capable of arising from the letter, while imputation 4(b)(ii) was vague and uncertain as to the plaintiff's conduct and was therefore defective in form.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Strike in Application and Application to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations Under Pt 14, R 14.28
Outcome
Imputation 4(b)(ii) struck out with liberty to replead; otherwise the defendants' application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike in Application' 'strike Out Application' 'matter Complained Of' 'composite Publication' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'strike in Application' 'strike Out Application' 'matter Complained Of' 'composite Publication' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity']

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 / Defendants' Strike in Application and Application to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations Under Pt 14, R 14.28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be directed to plead the letter of 9 October 2006 together with accompanying documents as one composite publication.' 'Whether imputations 4(a), 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) should be struck out for defective form or incapacity.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonably open for the plaintiff to plead the letter as a separate publication because the letter and accompanying documents differed in content, were intelligible separately, and the accompanying documents were not shown to be an inseparable component capable of changing the complexion of the pleaded imputations. Imputations 4(a) and 4(b)(i) were sufficiently precise and capable of arising from the letter, while imputation 4(b)(ii) was vague and uncertain as to the plaintiff's conduct and was therefore defective in form.

Court Disposition

Imputation 4(b)(ii) struck out with liberty to replead; otherwise the defendants' application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The letter, being the matter complained of, is reasonably capable of conveying imputations 4(a), 4(b)(i) and 4(c).' 'Imputation 4(b)(ii) is struck out, with liberty to replead.' "Otherwise the defendants' application is dismissed." 'The plaintiff is to file and serve any amended statement of claim by 4pm 26...