Sarina v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 196

Sarina v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 196

The pleaded imputations were reviewed individually for their capacity to be conveyed by the publication and whether they are capable of being defamatory. Several were struck out as defective in form, duplicative, or incapable of being conveyed, but many were permitted to go to the jury as capable of being defamatory, including alternative Chase level imputations. Where objections succeeded, leave to replead was generally granted.

Parties
Plaintiff: Clinton Sarina; First Defendant: Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Vanda Carson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Pleadings (form and Capacity of Imputations in Defamation)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders on pleadings: some imputations to go to the jury, others struck out with leave to replead, costs in the cause, directions for amended pleadings and further procedural steps.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Capacity of Imputations, Form of Imputations, Pleadings, Strike Out Applications
Tort Defamation Capacity of Imputations Form of Imputations Pleadings Strike Out Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clinton Sarina

Plaintiff

Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Vanda Carson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Pleadings (form and Capacity of Imputations in Defamation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded imputations are capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of
  2. 2 Whether each imputation is capable of being defamatory
  3. 3 Whether certain imputations are defective in form and should be struck out or permitted to go to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded imputations were reviewed individually for their capacity to be conveyed by the publication and whether they are capable of being defamatory. Several were struck out as defective in form, duplicative, or incapable of being conveyed, but many were permitted to go to the jury as capable of being defamatory, including alternative Chase level imputations. Where objections succeeded, leave to replead was generally granted.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders on pleadings: some imputations to go to the jury, others struck out with leave to replead, costs in the cause, directions for amended pleadings and further procedural steps.

Orders

  • Application under rr 14.28 and 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) noted
  • Imputation 4(a) to go to the jury