Allen v Lloyd-Jones [2009] NSWDC 168

Allen v Lloyd-Jones [2009] NSWDC 168

Imputations (f) and (h) were struck out because the matter complained of was not capable of conveying blackmail: the word 'they' referred to the newspaper, and the threat of litigation was directed to the newspaper if it reported the incident; threatening to sue someone if they report a complaint is not blackmail. The remaining imputations were not struck out because they concerned separate acts or conditions, differed in substance, and the reference to the plaintiff's mayoral office added a distinct aspect to the alleged misconduct rather than being a mere rhetorical flourish.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Determine Separate Questions of Law and Strike Out Imputations
Outcome
Imputations (f) and (h) struck out; defendant's application otherwise dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'strike Out Application']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of 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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Interlocutory Application to Determine Separate Questions of Law and Strike Out Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of was capable of sustaining imputations that the plaintiff blackmailed a woman by threatening legal action.' 'Whether the remaining imputations differed in substance or were defective in form.' 'Whether references to the plaintiff conducting himself inappropriately as Mayor were merely rhetorical flourishes.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (f) and (h) were struck out because the matter complained of was not capable of conveying blackmail: the word 'they' referred to the newspaper, and the threat of litigation was directed to the newspaper if it reported the incident; threatening to sue someone if they report a complaint is not blackmail. The remaining imputations were not struck out because they concerned separate acts or conditions, differed in substance, and the reference to the plaintiff's mayoral office added a distinct aspect to the alleged misconduct rather than being a mere rhetorical flourish.

Court Disposition

Imputations (f) and (h) struck out; defendant's application otherwise dismissed; plaintiff awarded costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (f) and (h) struck out.' "Defendant's application to strike out imputations otherwise dismissed." "Defendant pay plaintiff's costs." 'Amended Statement of Claim filed and served in 7 days.' 'Matter stood over for further directions to Friday 17 July 2009 at 9:00am.']