Saint v John Fairfax Publications P/L [2002] NSWSC 312

Saint v John Fairfax Publications P/L [2002] NSWSC 312

The publication was capable of carrying the pleaded imputations because it could be understood as implying that the plaintiff, identified as the Assistant Commissioner running the unhappy division, was responsible for the conditions described; alternatively, any inference of responsibility could be drawn without an impermissible two-step inference. The imputations alleging insensitive management and incompetent management differed in substance because those concepts are not coterminous and may require different matters to be proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Imputations in the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out the imputations was refused; plaintiff granted leave to amend and imputations (a) to (f) were to go to the jury.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'inference and Implication' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' 'strike Out Application']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'inference and Implication' 'whether Imputations Differ in Substance' '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 / Defendant's Application to Strike Out Imputations in the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the challenged imputations were capable of arising from the publication.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations depended on an impermissible inference upon inference.' 'Whether paired imputations alleging insensitive management and incompetent management differed in substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The publication was capable of carrying the pleaded imputations because it could be understood as implying that the plaintiff, identified as the Assistant Commissioner running the unhappy division, was responsible for the conditions described; alternatively, any inference of responsibility could be drawn without an impermissible two-step inference. The imputations alleging insensitive management and incompetent management differed in substance because those concepts are not coterminous and may require different matters to be proved.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out the imputations was refused; plaintiff granted leave to amend and imputations (a) to (f) were to go to the jury.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff has leave to amend the Statement of Claim to incorporate the reformulation of the imputations which has been foreshadowed.' 'The imputations (a) to (f) inclusive should go to the jury.' "The defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs." "The matter will be listed in the Registrar's Defamation...