Dorahy v Westbus Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWSC 655

Dorahy v Westbus Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWSC 655

The imputation that the plaintiff tried to abuse the system in order to get away with a free ride was sufficiently different from an allegation of successful fare evasion because it alleged an attempt, so it was not struck out. The imputation that the plaintiff "rorted the system" was not different in substance from imputations that the plaintiff was dishonest and a fare evader, because an ordinary reasonable person would not conceive of a category of honest rorter, so imputation (e) was struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application to Strike Out Two Imputations
Outcome
Orders made: imputation (e) struck out in paragraphs 2 and 4; relief declined in relation to imputation (f); plaintiff not put to election between imputations (a) and (b); no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' 'strike Out']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' '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

Defamation / Application to Strike Out Two Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the imputation that the plaintiff tried to abuse the system in order to get away with a free ride was different in substance from the imputation that the plaintiff was a fare evader.' 'Whether the imputation that the plaintiff "rorted the system" was different in substance from pleaded imputations that the plaintiff was dishonest and was a fare evader.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be put to election between imputations that he was dishonest and that he was a fare evader.']

Ratio Decidendi

The imputation that the plaintiff tried to abuse the system in order to get away with a free ride was sufficiently different from an allegation of successful fare evasion because it alleged an attempt, so it was not struck out. The imputation that the plaintiff "rorted the system" was not different in substance from imputations that the plaintiff was dishonest and a fare evader, because an ordinary reasonable person would not conceive of a category of honest rorter, so imputation (e) was struck out.

Court Disposition

Orders made: imputation (e) struck out in paragraphs 2 and 4; relief declined in relation to imputation (f); plaintiff not put to election between imputations (a) and (b); no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputation (e) be struck out in both paragraphs 2 and 4.' 'An appropriate defence to the issues to be determined pursuant to section 7A be filed within 28 days of 13 July 2001.' 'The matter can be placed in the next call up list for the purpose of date allocation of that hearing.' 'No order as to costs.']