Baker v Nightingale [2008] NSWDC 103

Baker v Nightingale [2008] NSWDC 103

The pleaded imputations (a) and (b) were not deficient in form. The matter complained of repeatedly used language of dictatorship, an iron fist, and a ruthless and possessive regime, so imputation (a) permissibly encapsulated the sting by using the word "dictatorial", which was not ambiguous in context. Imputation (b) was also permissible because the matter complained of was similarly non-specific, and an imputation need only be as specific as the publication from which it is drawn.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application to Strike Out Imputations (a) and (b) as Deficient in Form
Outcome
Defendants' application to strike out imputations (a) and (b) as deficient in form dismissed.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'objections to Form' 'strike Out Application' 'defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['imputations' 'objections to Form' 'strike Out Application' 'defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']

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 / Defendants' Application to Strike Out Imputations (a) and (b) as Deficient in Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (a), that the plaintiff rules Football Wagga in a dictatorial style, should be struck out as deficient in form.' 'Whether imputation (b), that the plaintiff has turned Football Wagga into a ruthless and possessive regime, should be struck out as deficient in form.' 'Whether a defamation plaintiff may plead an imputation using words drawn from the matter complained of.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded imputations (a) and (b) were not deficient in form. The matter complained of repeatedly used language of dictatorship, an iron fist, and a ruthless and possessive regime, so imputation (a) permissibly encapsulated the sting by using the word "dictatorial", which was not ambiguous in context. Imputation (b) was also permissible because the matter complained of was similarly non-specific, and an imputation need only be as specific as the publication from which it is drawn.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to strike out imputations (a) and (b) as deficient in form dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Defendants' application to strike out imputations (a) and (b) as deficient in form dismissed." "The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs thrown away by reason of amendments to the Statement of Claim." "Defendants pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs of the argument today." "Gibson DCJ's reasons for judgment to...