MacDougall v Pringle & 4 Ors [1999] NSWSC 879

MacDougall v Pringle & 4 Ors [1999] NSWSC 879

Many pleaded imputations were struck out or held not to go to the jury because they were bad in form, duplicated other imputations, failed to disclose the relevant conduct, or were incapable of being conveyed by the words complained of. Other imputations were sufficiently capable of arising and of being defamatory and were permitted to go to the jury. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend, while several particulars of aggravated damages were struck out because they did not particularise conduct by the defendants capable of aggravating damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination in the Defamation List Concerning Imputations, True Innuendos, Capacity, Special Damages and Aggravated Damages
Outcome
Some imputations and aggravated damages particulars were struck out or held not to go to the jury; other imputations were allowed to go to the jury; the plaintiff was granted leave to amend; each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the hearing.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Sue as Executor' 'true Innuendo' 'special Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'pleaded Defamatory Meaning']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Sue as Executor' 'true Innuendo' 'special Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'separate Determination of Issues' 'pleaded Defamatory Meaning']

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 Determination in the Defamation List Concerning Imputations, True Innuendos, Capacity, Special Damages and Aggravated Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pleaded imputations against the defendants were good in form, capable of arising and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether the plaintiff could plead imputations as true innuendos by reference to extrinsic facts.' "Whether the plaintiff's claim in his capacity as executor and the pleaded special damages were properly maintainable or required clarification." 'Whether particulars pleaded in support of aggravated damages particularised conduct capable of aggravating damages.' 'Whether directions should be considered for early separate determination of publication and meaning.']

Ratio Decidendi

Many pleaded imputations were struck out or held not to go to the jury because they were bad in form, duplicated other imputations, failed to disclose the relevant conduct, or were incapable of being conveyed by the words complained of. Other imputations were sufficiently capable of arising and of being defamatory and were permitted to go to the jury. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend, while several particulars of aggravated damages were struck out because they did not particularise conduct by the defendants capable of aggravating damages.

Court Disposition

Some imputations and aggravated damages particulars were struck out or held not to go to the jury; other imputations were allowed to go to the jury; the plaintiff was granted leave to amend; each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the hearing.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4.4 and 4.7 will go to the jury.' 'Imputations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.8 are struck out.' 'Imputations 8.1, 8.2, 8.5 and 8.8 will go to the jury.' 'Imputations 8.3, 8.4 and 8.7 are struck out.' 'Imputations 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 will not go to the jury.' 'Imputation 12.4 is struck out.' 'Imputations 16.4,...