Isaac Moses v Sam Ayoub [2007] NSWDC 172

Isaac Moses v Sam Ayoub [2007] NSWDC 172

The plaintiff was identified by name and no particulars of identification were necessary. Imputations (a), (b), (c) and (d) were taken from the matter complained of, and imputation (e) was capable of arising in the natural and ordinary meaning in circumstances where the publication was to persons with relevant knowledge of the NRL agent scheme. The pleading that all imputations arose by reason of extrinsic facts was therefore defective and was struck out with leave to replead. Imputation (b) could not arise at the same time as imputation (a) and had to be pleaded as a fall-back imputation. Imputations (d) and (e) were capable of being conveyed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations Pleaded in a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application allowed in part; pleading concerning extrinsic facts struck out with leave to replead and directions made about the imputations and further conduct of the matter.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'strike Out Application']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'imputations' 'true Innuendo' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'strike Out Application']

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 Application to Strike Out Imputations Pleaded in a Proposed Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed pleading of imputations as arising from natural and ordinary meaning together with extrinsic facts was adequate.' 'Whether imputations (a) and (b) differed in substance or should be pleaded as alternatives.' 'Whether imputations (d) and (e) were capable of being conveyed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was identified by name and no particulars of identification were necessary. Imputations (a), (b), (c) and (d) were taken from the matter complained of, and imputation (e) was capable of arising in the natural and ordinary meaning in circumstances where the publication was to persons with relevant knowledge of the NRL agent scheme. The pleading that all imputations arose by reason of extrinsic facts was therefore defective and was struck out with leave to replead. Imputation (b) could not arise at the same time as imputation (a) and had to be pleaded as a fall-back imputation. Imputations (d) and (e) were capable of being conveyed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; pleading concerning extrinsic facts struck out with leave to replead and directions made about the imputations and further conduct of the matter.

Orders

  • ['Strike out the pleading in the proposed paragraph 2 concerning extrinsic facts, with leave to replead.' 'Imputation (b) to be pleaded as a fall back to imputation (a).' 'Imputations (d) and (e) are capable of being conveyed.' 'Note parties dispense with a jury.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of...