Renshaw v Reed Business Information Pty Ltd trading as Lawyers Weekly [2013] NSWDC 5

Renshaw v Reed Business Information Pty Ltd trading as Lawyers Weekly [2013] NSWDC 5

Imputations (b) and (d) were found capable of being conveyed and will go to the jury; imputations (e) and (f) were struck out but the plaintiff given leave to replead, as they were either insufficiently specific or failed to capture the intended sting. The use of clear descriptive words from the article ('seedy') was permissible. Costs were awarded to the defendant given partial success and the plaintiff's failure to comply with court timetables.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Renshaw; First Defendant: Reed Business Information Pty Ltd trading as Lawyers Weekly; Second Defendant: Jeremy Knibb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application; Ruling on Imputations in Defamation Pleadings
Outcome
Imputations (b) and (d) to go to jury; imputations (e) and (f) struck out with leave to replead; leave to strike in photograph; costs to defendants.
Legal Topics
Imputations, Form and Capacity of Imputations, Striking Out of Pleadings, Defamatory Meaning
Tort Defamation Imputations Form and Capacity of Imputations Striking Out of Pleadings Defamatory Meaning

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Renshaw

Plaintiff

Reed Business Information Pty Ltd trading as Lawyers Weekly

First Defendant

Jeremy Knibb

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application; Ruling on Imputations in Defamation Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific pleaded imputations in defamation case are capable of being conveyed and should be struck out or allowed to go to the jury
  2. 2 Whether certain language in the imputations (e.g., 'seedy', 'unfit') is impermissibly vague, slang, or duplicative

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (b) and (d) were found capable of being conveyed and will go to the jury; imputations (e) and (f) were struck out but the plaintiff given leave to replead, as they were either insufficiently specific or failed to capture the intended sting. The use of clear descriptive words from the article ('seedy') was permissible. Costs were awarded to the defendant given partial success and the plaintiff's failure to comply with court timetables.

Court Disposition

Imputations (b) and (d) to go to jury; imputations (e) and (f) struck out with leave to replead; leave to strike in photograph; costs to defendants.

Orders

  • Grant leave to the plaintiff to strike in as paragraph 12 of the matter complained of the photograph appearing opposite paragraphs 3 to 5 of the matter complained of.
  • Imputations (b) and (d) will go to the jury.