Bitel & Ors v Ruddock & David Syme & Co Limited [2000] NSWSC 840

Bitel & Ors v Ruddock & David Syme & Co Limited [2000] NSWSC 840

The matter complained of, read as a whole, was capable of referring to the individual plaintiffs because it identified Parish Patience as one of the two main legal firms involved in large scale immigration class actions. Imputations 13.1 and 14.1 were not struck out because they were sufficiently clear, capable of being conveyed and capable of defaming the plaintiffs despite their form and tense. Imputations 13.2-13.4 and 14.2-14.4 differed in substance and the imputations concerning unethical conduct, abuse of process and overcharging were generally capable of being conveyed. However, imputations 14.2-14.4 were struck out because the publication did not state or legitimately imply that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Imputations Pleaded in the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Imputations 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 struck out; other grounds of challenge rejected.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'identification of Plaintiffs in Group Defamation' 'passive Voice in Pleaded Imputations' 'strike Out' 'true Innuendo']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'identification of Plaintiffs in Group Defamation' 'passive Voice in Pleaded Imputations' 'strike Out' 'true Innuendo']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Imputations Pleaded in the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of was capable of identifying the individual plaintiffs as being included in the group or class criticised in the article.' 'Whether imputations 13.1 and 14.1 should be struck out because they were pleaded in passive voice or were incapable of arising from the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations 13.2-13.4 and 14.2-14.4 differed in substance for the purposes of SCR Part 67 Rule 11(3).' 'Whether imputations alleging unethical conduct, abuse of process and overcharging were capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations 14.2-14.4 alleging knowledge, acquiescence or participation by the individual plaintiffs could be derived from the publication without pleading true innuendo.']

Ratio Decidendi

The matter complained of, read as a whole, was capable of referring to the individual plaintiffs because it identified Parish Patience as one of the two main legal firms involved in large scale immigration class actions. Imputations 13.1 and 14.1 were not struck out because they were sufficiently clear, capable of being conveyed and capable of defaming the plaintiffs despite their form and tense. Imputations 13.2-13.4 and 14.2-14.4 differed in substance and the imputations concerning unethical conduct, abuse of process and overcharging were generally capable of being conveyed. However, imputations 14.2-14.4 were struck out because the publication did not state or legitimately imply that...

Court Disposition

Imputations 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 struck out; other grounds of challenge rejected.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 struck out.']