Rakhimov v Jennings & Anor [2001] NSWSC 12

Rakhimov v Jennings & Anor [2001] NSWSC 12

Imputations 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) did not differ in substance and were struck out with leave to re-plead. Imputation 4(d) was capable of conveying that the plaintiff was in fact a criminal posing a threat and was allowed to go to the jury. Imputation 4(e) was struck out with leave to re-plead. Imputation 4(f) was incapable because the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the alleged bribery as directed to Mr Chowdhry's election, not the plaintiff's election, so verdict was entered for the defendants on that cause of action. Imputation 4(g) was proper in form and capable of arising. Imputations 4(h) and 4(i) did not differ in substance and were struck out with leave to re-plead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Imputations, Capacity and Form
Outcome
Defendants succeeded in the dispute concerning the imputations; several imputations were struck out with leave to re-plead, verdict was entered for the defendants on imputation 4(f), imputations 4(d) and 4(g) were allowed to go to the jury, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'striking Out' 'leave to Re Plead' 'jury']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'striking Out' 'leave to Re Plead' '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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Imputations, Capacity and Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pleaded imputations 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) differed in substance.' 'Whether imputation 4(d) was capable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputation 4(e) should be struck out.' 'Whether imputations 4(e) and 4(g), and imputations 4(h) and 4(i), differed in substance.' 'Whether imputation 4(f) was capable of arising from the publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) did not differ in substance and were struck out with leave to re-plead. Imputation 4(d) was capable of conveying that the plaintiff was in fact a criminal posing a threat and was allowed to go to the jury. Imputation 4(e) was struck out with leave to re-plead. Imputation 4(f) was incapable because the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the alleged bribery as directed to Mr Chowdhry's election, not the plaintiff's election, so verdict was entered for the defendants on that cause of action. Imputation 4(g) was proper in form and capable of arising. Imputations 4(h) and 4(i) did not differ in substance and were struck out with leave to re-plead.

Court Disposition

Defendants succeeded in the dispute concerning the imputations; several imputations were struck out with leave to re-plead, verdict was entered for the defendants on imputation 4(f), imputations 4(d) and 4(g) were allowed to go to the jury, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4(a), (b) and (c) are struck out with leave to re-plead.' 'Imputation 4(d) will go to the jury.' 'Imputation 4(e) is struck out with leave to re-plead.' 'Imputation 4(f): a verdict for the defendant is entered in respect of this cause of action.' 'Imputation 4(g) will go to the jury.' 'Imputations 4(h)...