Grygiel v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2017] NSWSC 355

The matter complained of is plainly capable of conveying imputations 4(b) and 4(d; it is for the jury to determine whether those meanings are conveyed.

Parties: Plaintiff: Dr John Grygiel; First Defendant: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Second Defendant: Matthew Peacock
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 31 March 2017
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Pre Trial Ruling on Capacity of Imputations to Arise
Outcome: Imputations 4(b) and 4(d) are to go to the jury.
Legal Topics: Imputations, Capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning, Pleadings

Defamation Imputations Capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning Pleadings

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Dr John Grygiel

Plaintiff

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

First Defendant

Matthew Peacock

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Pre Trial Ruling on Capacity of Imputations to Arise

Legal Issues

1 Whether imputations 4(b) and 4(d) are reasonably capable of arising from the matter complained of

Ratio Decidendi

The matter complained of is plainly capable of conveying imputations 4(b) and 4(d; it is for the jury to determine whether those meanings are conveyed.

Court Disposition

Imputations 4(b) and 4(d) are to go to the jury.

Orders

Imputations 4(b) and 4(d) will go to the jury