Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311

Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311

Imputations (a), (b), and (c) differ in substance and should go to the jury; however, imputation (d) is merely rhetorical and does not add anything substantially different, and should not go to the jury.

Parties
Plaintiff: David Parker; Defendant: John Laws
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations in Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out imputations allowed in part
Legal Topics
Pleading, Imputations, Form of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Test for Substantive Difference in Imputations
Defamation Pleading Imputations Form of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Test for Substantive Difference in Imputations

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Parker

Plaintiff

John Laws

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Application / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations in Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether various imputations pleaded by the plaintiff differ in substance or are merely rhetorical
  2. 2 Whether certain imputations should be struck out as not differing in substance

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (a), (b), and (c) differ in substance and should go to the jury; however, imputation (d) is merely rhetorical and does not add anything substantially different, and should not go to the jury.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out imputations allowed in part

Orders

  • Imputations (a), (b), and (c) should go to the jury.
  • Imputation (d) should not go to the jury.