Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2001] NSWSC 10

Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2001] NSWSC 10

The segment's statement that the FBI suspected the plaintiff of drug trafficking was not capable, in this case, of carrying the active-voice imputation that the plaintiff behaved in such a way as to deserve to be suspected. Inferring conduct from the fact of suspicion would be speculative rather than a natural inference; the matter was capable of conveying only that the plaintiff was suspected by the FBI of drug trafficking. Imputations 4(a) and 6(a) were therefore incapable of being carried by the matter complained of.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Separate Determination Under SCR Pt 31 R 2 of Whether the Matter Complained of Is Capable of Carrying the First Imputation
Outcome
Verdict entered for the defendants in respect of imputations 4(a) and 6(a); remaining imputations to go to the jury; plaintiff granted leave to amend.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'suspected Criminal Conduct' 'separate Determination']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'suspected Criminal Conduct' 'separate Determination']

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 / Separate Determination Under SCR Pt 31 R 2 of Whether the Matter Complained of Is Capable of Carrying the First Imputation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of was capable of carrying the imputation that the plaintiff behaved in such a way as to deserve to be suspected by the FBI of drug trafficking.' "Whether a statement that the plaintiff was suspected by the FBI of drug trafficking could support an active-voice imputation based on the plaintiff's conduct or behaviour."]

Ratio Decidendi

The segment's statement that the FBI suspected the plaintiff of drug trafficking was not capable, in this case, of carrying the active-voice imputation that the plaintiff behaved in such a way as to deserve to be suspected. Inferring conduct from the fact of suspicion would be speculative rather than a natural inference; the matter was capable of conveying only that the plaintiff was suspected by the FBI of drug trafficking. Imputations 4(a) and 6(a) were therefore incapable of being carried by the matter complained of.

Court Disposition

Verdict entered for the defendants in respect of imputations 4(a) and 6(a); remaining imputations to go to the jury; plaintiff granted leave to amend.

Orders

  • ['A verdict for the defendants is entered in respect of imputations 4(a) and 6(a).' 'Imputations 4(b), (c) and (d), 6(b), (c) and (d) will go to the jury.' 'The plaintiff has leave to file a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim within 21 days.' "The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs." 'The matter...