Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 119

Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 119

The plaintiff was not permitted to add the dishonesty imputation because the same broadcast material relied on for that imputation was capable of supporting bias or favouring particular teams, but was not reasonably capable of supporting a separate imputation of conscious and deliberate cheating. The court also declined to vary the earlier consent orders allowing the specific favouring imputations, and directed the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim reflecting those orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Plaintiff's Application to Amend Statement of Claim Before the Scheduled Determination of Jury Issues Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'capacity to Carry Defamatory Meaning' 'consent Orders' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'capacity to Carry Defamatory Meaning' 'consent Orders' 'costs']

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 Proceeding / Plaintiff's Application to Amend Statement of Claim Before the Scheduled Determination of Jury Issues Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the broadcast was reasonably capable of carrying a separate imputation that the plaintiff was dishonest as a referee.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the statement of claim to rely on the proposed dishonesty imputation.' 'Whether the court should vary the consent orders made by Levine J on 3 December 1999 concerning the specific favouring imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not permitted to add the dishonesty imputation because the same broadcast material relied on for that imputation was capable of supporting bias or favouring particular teams, but was not reasonably capable of supporting a separate imputation of conscious and deliberate cheating. The court also declined to vary the earlier consent orders allowing the specific favouring imputations, and directed the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim reflecting those orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is not allowed to rely upon the proposed dishonesty imputation.' 'The plaintiff is to file an amended statement of claim reflecting the orders made by Levine J on 3 December 1999 by 15 March 2000.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the motion of 3 March 2000.']