Markham v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1839

Markham v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1839

Imputation (a) was capable of conveying collusion by the Markham family including the plaintiff, but was not capable in its current form because the article did not suggest that the college was entitled to the profits Markham Corporation would make; it was struck out with leave to replead. Imputations (b) and (c) were capable of conveying collusion and pressure by the Markham family on the college. Imputation (f) was capable of conveying that the valuation relied on by the plaintiff would have misled the board as to the true value of the asset. Imputation (g) was not reasonably capable of being conveyed because the article did not suggest the plaintiff's involvement or input in the later...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Applications; Defendants' Objections to Imputations
Outcome
Imputations (a) and (g) struck out with leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.
Legal Topics
['objections to Imputations' 'capacity of Meanings' 'strike Out' 'leave to Replead']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['objections to Imputations' 'capacity of Meanings' 'strike Out' 'leave to Replead']

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 / Interlocutory Applications; Defendants' Objections to Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (a) was reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matters complained of, including whether the article conveyed collusion by James Markham with other members of the Markham family and whether the college was entitled to the profit Markham Corporation would make.' 'Whether imputations (b) and (c) were reasonably capable of conveying that the plaintiff colluded with other members of the Markham family to exert pressure on the McDonald College to sell land at an under value.' 'Whether imputation (e) differed in substance from imputation (a).' 'Whether imputation (f) was reasonably capable of conveying that the plaintiff knowingly employed a misleading valuation.' 'Whether imputation (g) was reasonably capable of conveying that the plaintiff colluded with other members of the Markham family to remove Mr Rick Watkins from the board as retribution for his opposition to the development proposal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation (a) was capable of conveying collusion by the Markham family including the plaintiff, but was not capable in its current form because the article did not suggest that the college was entitled to the profits Markham Corporation would make; it was struck out with leave to replead. Imputations (b) and (c) were capable of conveying collusion and pressure by the Markham family on the college. Imputation (f) was capable of conveying that the valuation relied on by the plaintiff would have misled the board as to the true value of the asset. Imputation (g) was not reasonably capable of being conveyed because the article did not suggest the plaintiff's involvement or input in the later...

Court Disposition

Imputations (a) and (g) struck out with leave to replead in accordance with the reasons.

Orders

  • ['That imputations (a) and (g) be struck out with leave to replead in accordance with these reasons.']