Hill v Westfield & Anor [2003] NSWSC 437

Certain pleaded imputations do not differ in substance and must be elected upon by the plaintiff; some imputations are incapable of being conveyed in their natural and ordinary meaning and are struck out; leave given to amend the statement of claim.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 June 2003
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations
Outcome: Partial strike out of imputations and leave to amend statement of claim
Legal Topics: ['imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'capacity to Convey Meaning']

['defamation'] ['imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'capacity to Convey 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

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations differ in substance as required by the Supreme Court Rules' 'Whether the matter complained of is capable of conveying the pleaded imputations in its natural and ordinary meaning' 'Whether certain imputations are bad in form']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Partial strike out of imputations and leave to amend statement of claim

Orders

['Proceedings 20565 of 2002: (a) imputation (d) struck out; (b) plaintiff to elect as to which of imputations (c), (f) and (g) to pursue; (c) plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.' 'Proceedings 20023 of 2003: (a) imputations (a), (b) and (c) struck out; (b) plaintiff granted leave to file an...