HODGE v TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1075

HODGE v TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1075

Imputation 4(a) was a rolled-up imputation containing separate components of psychological trauma and abandonment of career and was struck out with leave to replead. Imputation 4(b), as amended, was proper in form, capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory. Imputations 4(c) and 4(d) differed in substance and were each capable of being carried and defamatory. Imputation 4(g) was not rhetorical and was proper in form, capable of being carried and defamatory. Imputation 4(h) was capable of being carried and defamatory only after striking out the words 'and paying that child inappropriate attention in preference to her' as meaningless and defective in form.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Separate Issue of Law on Capacity and Form of Imputations Under SCR Part 31 R 2
Outcome
Plaintiff predominantly successful on the imputations argument; imputation 4(a) struck out with leave to replead, part of imputation 4(h) struck out, other challenged imputations upheld, expedition confirmed, and costs ordered against the defendant.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'jury Trial Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act' 'expedition' 'costs']
['defamation Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'jury Trial Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act' 'expedition' 'costs']

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 Issue of Law on Capacity and Form of Imputations Under SCR Part 31 R 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the challenged imputations were capable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether the challenged imputations were capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether imputation 4(a) was a rolled-up or composite imputation.' 'Whether the expressions used in the imputations were vague or imprecise.' 'Whether any imputations did not differ in substance or were rhetorical.' 'Whether part of imputation 4(h) should be struck out for defective form.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation 4(a) was a rolled-up imputation containing separate components of psychological trauma and abandonment of career and was struck out with leave to replead. Imputation 4(b), as amended, was proper in form, capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory. Imputations 4(c) and 4(d) differed in substance and were each capable of being carried and defamatory. Imputation 4(g) was not rhetorical and was proper in form, capable of being carried and defamatory. Imputation 4(h) was capable of being carried and defamatory only after striking out the words 'and paying that child inappropriate attention in preference to her' as meaningless and defective in form.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff predominantly successful on the imputations argument; imputation 4(a) struck out with leave to replead, part of imputation 4(h) struck out, other challenged imputations upheld, expedition confirmed, and costs ordered against the defendant.

Orders

  • ['If the plaintiff is to exercise the leave to amend, he should do so by 5.00 pm on Monday 24 November.' 'The defendant is, by 4.00 pm on Friday 28 November, to file its defence, limited to the issues to be determined by the Jury pursuant to s 7A of the Defamation Act, pursuant to Part 31 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court...