EZZO v GRILLE [2004] NSWSC 522

EZZO v GRILLE [2004] NSWSC 522

Imputations lacking clarity or specificity, particularly those using ambiguous phrases such as 'caused' or 'responsible for', are defective in form and must be struck out. Allegations of publication on the internet must be adequately particularised regarding the defendant's role in uploading the material. Imputations properly specific and capable of being carried by the matter complained of may proceed to determination by jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Pre Trial Interlocutory Determination of Pleadings and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made. Imputations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 15, and 16 struck out with leave to replead. Imputations 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 allowed to proceed. Verdict for defendant on imputations 6, 11 and 14.
Legal Topics
['capacity of Imputations' 'internet Publication' 'pleading Requirements']
['defamation'] ['capacity of Imputations' 'internet Publication' 'pleading Requirements']

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 / Pre Trial Interlocutory Determination of Pleadings and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement of claim sufficiently particularises the allegation of internet publication' 'Whether the pleaded imputations are capable of being carried by the matter complained of' 'Whether certain imputations are bad in form or lack specificity']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations lacking clarity or specificity, particularly those using ambiguous phrases such as 'caused' or 'responsible for', are defective in form and must be struck out. Allegations of publication on the internet must be adequately particularised regarding the defendant's role in uploading the material. Imputations properly specific and capable of being carried by the matter complained of may proceed to determination by jury.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made. Imputations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 15, and 16 struck out with leave to replead. Imputations 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 allowed to proceed. Verdict for defendant on imputations 6, 11 and 14.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff to provide particulars of facts, matters and circumstances upon which he relies in asserting defendant published the matter on the internet.' 'Imputations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 15 and 16 are struck out with leave to replead.' 'Imputations 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 17 may proceed.' 'Imputations 6, 11 and 14:...