Harb v Trustees of the Christian Brothers trading as St Patrick’s College Strathfield [2016] NSWDC 90

Harb v Trustees of the Christian Brothers trading as St Patrick’s College Strathfield [2016] NSWDC 90

In the context of the headmaster's words and the pleaded extrinsic facts, imputations (a) and (c) did not differ in substance because the relevant sting of the Judas comparison was betrayal of the trust of a person to whom loyalty was owed; they were therefore struck out with leave to plead the combined imputation that the plaintiff is a traitor in that he betrays his friends and colleagues. Imputation (d), alleging that the plaintiff is the type of person who accepts bribes, differed in substance from imputation (e) but was not capable of arising because bribery connotes giving money or another benefit to a person in power and did not capture the sting of Judas selling out a person with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceeding / Argument on Form and Capacity of Imputations Pursuant to UCPR R 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Imputations (a), (c) and (d) were struck out; the plaintiff was permitted to plead a replacement imputation for (a) and (c); timetable, costs and directions orders were made.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'comparison to Judas' 'strike Out']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'comparison to Judas' 'strike Out']

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

Civil Defamation Proceeding / Argument on Form and Capacity of Imputations Pursuant to UCPR R 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations (a) and (c) differ in substance.' 'Whether imputations (d) and (e) differ in substance and, if so, whether imputation (d) is capable of being conveyed.']

Ratio Decidendi

In the context of the headmaster's words and the pleaded extrinsic facts, imputations (a) and (c) did not differ in substance because the relevant sting of the Judas comparison was betrayal of the trust of a person to whom loyalty was owed; they were therefore struck out with leave to plead the combined imputation that the plaintiff is a traitor in that he betrays his friends and colleagues. Imputation (d), alleging that the plaintiff is the type of person who accepts bribes, differed in substance from imputation (e) but was not capable of arising because bribery connotes giving money or another benefit to a person in power and did not capture the sting of Judas selling out a person with...

Court Disposition

Imputations (a), (c) and (d) were struck out; the plaintiff was permitted to plead a replacement imputation for (a) and (c); timetable, costs and directions orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Strike out imputations (a) and (c) and in lieu permit the plaintiff to plead "the plaintiff is a traitor in that he betrays his friends and colleagues".' 'Imputation (d) is struck out as incapable of arising.' 'Plaintiff to serve amended statement of claim in 7 days.' 'Defendants to file and serve their defence(s)...