Kelly v Fairfax Media Publications [2012] NSWSC 690

Kelly v Fairfax Media Publications [2012] NSWSC 690

Applying the tests of capacity, form and substantive difference, the Court held that some proposed imputations were capable of being pleaded, some should stand only as fallback or alternative imputations, and others were too vague, ambiguous or insufficiently distinct to be pleaded in their proposed form. The plaintiff was granted leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Objections to Proposed Imputations in a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'ambiguity' 'fallback Imputations' 'leave to Amend']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'ambiguity' 'fallback Imputations' 'leave to Amend']

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 Applications Concerning Objections to Proposed Imputations in a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each proposed imputation was reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether proposed imputations were bad in form because they were ambiguous or likely to cause embarrassment in the proceedings.' 'Whether multiple proposed imputations differed in substance or contravened rule 14.30(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether certain imputations alleging corruption or corrupt conduct identified the alleged defamatory meaning with sufficient precision.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the tests of capacity, form and substantive difference, the Court held that some proposed imputations were capable of being pleaded, some should stand only as fallback or alternative imputations, and others were too vague, ambiguous or insufficiently distinct to be pleaded in their proposed form. The plaintiff was granted leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim in accordance with the reasons.']