O’Neill v Lewis [2017] NSWSC 1213

O’Neill v Lewis [2017] NSWSC 1213

Imputations 2(a) and 2(b) used the same or substantially the same words to convey different intended meanings about whether concussion had been observed, creating ambiguity that required re-pleading. If the ambiguity were cured, the imputations would convey different stings. Imputations 4(a) and 4(b) differed in substance because one alleged negligent endangerment of Danny Green's life by an act and the other alleged reckless indifference to his welfare.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / First Listing in Accordance With the Defamation List Practice Note SC CL 4; Procedural Ruling on Objections to Imputations
Outcome
Imputations 2(a) and (b) struck out for ambiguity with leave to re-plead; imputations 4(a) and (b) allowed to stand.
Legal Topics
['objections to Imputations' 'ambiguity in Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'pleading']
['defamation'] ['objections to Imputations' 'ambiguity in Imputations' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'pleading']

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 / First Listing in Accordance With the Defamation List Practice Note SC CL 4; Procedural Ruling on Objections to Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 2(a) and 2(b) pleaded in respect of the first matter complained of differed in substance or were ambiguous.' 'Whether imputations 4(a) and 4(b) pleaded in respect of the second matter complained of differed in substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 2(a) and 2(b) used the same or substantially the same words to convey different intended meanings about whether concussion had been observed, creating ambiguity that required re-pleading. If the ambiguity were cured, the imputations would convey different stings. Imputations 4(a) and 4(b) differed in substance because one alleged negligent endangerment of Danny Green's life by an act and the other alleged reckless indifference to his welfare.

Court Disposition

Imputations 2(a) and (b) struck out for ambiguity with leave to re-plead; imputations 4(a) and (b) allowed to stand.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 2(a) and (b) struck out for ambiguity with leave to re-plead.' 'The plaintiff should re-plead the statement of claim to cure the defects in imputations 2(a) and (b).' "The costs of today's arguments be each party's costs in the cause."]