DAWSON v ACP PUBLISHING PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 712

DAWSON v ACP PUBLISHING PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 712

Most of the pleaded imputations were struck out because they were bad in form, rolled up or composite, contained extraneous or rhetorical material, or did not differ in substance from other imputations. Imputation (vi) was incapable of being carried by the matter complained of, and imputation (xvi) was incapable of being defamatory. Imputation (vii) was capable of arising and capable of being defamatory. The publication was disparaging of the plaintiff but did not justify nineteen separate causes of action.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim for Damages Arising From an Article Published in Woman's Day / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Most imputations struck out or determined against the plaintiff; imputation (vii) allowed to proceed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs and granted leave to amend.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'multiplicity of Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'extraneous or Rhetorical Material' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'multiplicity of Imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'extraneous or Rhetorical Material' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance']

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 Claim for Damages Arising From an Article Published in Woman's Day / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's pleaded imputations were oppressive or unfair by reason of multiplicity." 'Whether particular imputations were bad in form because they were rolled up, composite, vague, rhetorical or contained extraneous material.' 'Whether particular imputations differed in substance from other imputations.' 'Whether particular imputations were capable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether particular imputations were capable of being defamatory.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the pleaded imputations were struck out because they were bad in form, rolled up or composite, contained extraneous or rhetorical material, or did not differ in substance from other imputations. Imputation (vi) was incapable of being carried by the matter complained of, and imputation (xvi) was incapable of being defamatory. Imputation (vii) was capable of arising and capable of being defamatory. The publication was disparaging of the plaintiff but did not justify nineteen separate causes of action.

Court Disposition

Most imputations struck out or determined against the plaintiff; imputation (vii) allowed to proceed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs and granted leave to amend.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) are struck out.' 'Imputation (vi) as a matter of law is incapable of being carried by the matter complained of and in respect of such cause of action a verdict is entered for the defendant...