Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1453

Jones v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1453

Contextual imputation A should be struck out because, although the general allegation that the plaintiff is a conman may differ in substance from the plaintiff's more specific imputations, the matter complained of only imputed that character to the plaintiff in the specific context of allegations concerning NRE Electrics and Mr Ray, so it was not an other imputation carried in addition to the plaintiff's imputations for s 26. Contextual imputation C should be struck out because the broadcast, viewed as a whole, was not reasonably capable of conveying an imputation of incompetent workmanship; the suggested meaning from the words 'repair the damage' was forced or strained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Objections to Defendants' Contextual Imputations
Outcome
Defendants' contextual imputations A and C struck out, with leave to amend defences.
Legal Topics
['contextual Truth' 'contextual Imputations' 'striking Out Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'interlocutory Applications']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['contextual Truth' 'contextual Imputations' 'striking Out Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'interlocutory 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Objections to Defendants' Contextual Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether contextual imputation A, that the plaintiff is a conman, was capable of being an other imputation carried in addition to the plaintiff's pleaded defamatory imputations for the purposes of s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005." "Whether contextual imputation C, that the plaintiff incompetently installed a new electricity system into Robyn Rouse's home, was capable of arising from the matter complained of." 'Whether considerations under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 informed the determination of whether a contextual imputation complies with s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005.' 'Whether it was appropriate to strike out contextual imputations at the interlocutory stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

Contextual imputation A should be struck out because, although the general allegation that the plaintiff is a conman may differ in substance from the plaintiff's more specific imputations, the matter complained of only imputed that character to the plaintiff in the specific context of allegations concerning NRE Electrics and Mr Ray, so it was not an other imputation carried in addition to the plaintiff's imputations for s 26. Contextual imputation C should be struck out because the broadcast, viewed as a whole, was not reasonably capable of conveying an imputation of incompetent workmanship; the suggested meaning from the words 'repair the damage' was forced or strained.

Court Disposition

Defendants' contextual imputations A and C struck out, with leave to amend defences.

Orders

  • ["That the defendants' contextual imputations A and C be struck out;" 'That the defendants have leave to amend their defences in accordance with these reasons and the matters previously agreed between the parties within 14 days.']