Wallace v Alan Jones & Anor [2001] NSWSC 1085

Wallace v Alan Jones & Anor [2001] NSWSC 1085

The Court held that imputations 4(a), 6(c), 6(d), 8(e), 10(n) and 13(p) were capable of being carried by the respective broadcasts and capable of being defamatory; imputations 8(h) and 8(j) were not capable of being carried; imputation 8(k) was a rhetorical imputation bad in form and was struck out without leave to replead; and imputation 8(l), using the word "corrupt", was struck out as bad in form with leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Radio Broadcasts / Interlocutory Determination of Whether Pleaded Imputations Were Capable of Being Carried, Capable of Being Defamatory, and Good in Form
Outcome
Some imputations were allowed to proceed, some were held incapable, and some were struck out; the matter was directed toward jury trial and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['radio Broadcasts' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'pleading Form' 'trial by Jury']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['radio Broadcasts' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'pleading Form' 'trial by Jury']

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 Concerning Radio Broadcasts / Interlocutory Determination of Whether Pleaded Imputations Were Capable of Being Carried, Capable of Being Defamatory, and Good in Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 4(a), 6(c), 6(d), 8(e), 8(h), 8(j), 8(k), 8(l), 10(n) and 13(p) were capable of being carried by the respective broadcasts.' 'Whether the challenged imputations were capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether particular imputations were bad in form, including because of words such as "dishonestly", "corrupt", "sincere" or because they were rhetorical.' 'Whether issues joined between the parties should be directed to trial by jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that imputations 4(a), 6(c), 6(d), 8(e), 10(n) and 13(p) were capable of being carried by the respective broadcasts and capable of being defamatory; imputations 8(h) and 8(j) were not capable of being carried; imputation 8(k) was a rhetorical imputation bad in form and was struck out without leave to replead; and imputation 8(l), using the word "corrupt", was struck out as bad in form with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Some imputations were allowed to proceed, some were held incapable, and some were struck out; the matter was directed toward jury trial and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4(a), 6(c), 6(d), 8(e), 10(n) and 13(p) are capable of being carried by the respective matters complained of and are capable of being defamatory.' 'Imputations 8(h) and 8(j) are incapable of being carried by the relevant matter complained of.' 'Imputation 8(k) is struck out as bad in form without leave...