Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 547

The plaintiff's imputations, as pleaded, are sufficiently different in substance, properly particularised, and supported by the publications such that they should not be struck out; alternative pleading is appropriate where imputations exist in degrees of seriousness.

Parties: Plaintiff: Jeffrey Thomas Jarratt; Defendant: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 19 June 2000
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations
Outcome: Application to strike out imputations refused
Legal Topics: Imputations, Pleading Requirements, Capacity of Matter to Convey Imputations, Difference in Substance Between Imputations

Defamation Imputations Pleading Requirements Capacity of Matter to Convey Imputations Difference in Substance Between Imputations

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jeffrey Thomas Jarratt

Plaintiff

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Imputations

Legal Issues

1 Whether the pleaded imputations differ in substance as required by SCR Pt 67 r 11(3)
2 Whether the imputations are sufficiently specific in form
3 Whether the matters complained of are capable of conveying the alleged imputations

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to strike out imputations refused

Orders

Leave to plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to plead alternative imputations
If not amended, plaintiff must elect which imputations to rely upon