SAINT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 580

SAINT v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 580

The defendant's contextual imputations did not differ in substance from each other, nor, in relevant respects, from the plaintiff’s four imputations as found by the jury. Therefore, paragraph 5 of the defence is defective in form and should be struck out, with leave to replead.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jillian Saint; Defendant: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Strike Out Application Ruling on Contextual Truth Defence
Outcome
Paragraph 5 of the defence struck out; leave to replead within 14 days; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; matter stood over to Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 11 July 2003.
Legal Topics
Contextual Truth Defence, Difference in Substance of Imputations, Pleading Requirements, Section 16 Defamation Act 1974
Defamation Contextual Truth Defence Difference in Substance of Imputations Pleading Requirements Section 16 Defamation Act 1974

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jillian Saint

Plaintiff

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Strike Out Application Ruling on Contextual Truth Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's contextual imputations differ in substance from each other and from the plaintiff's imputations under s16 of the Defamation Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the contextual imputations can be carried by the matter complained of 'at the same time and in addition to' the plaintiff's imputations
  3. 3 Whether the contextual imputations, if proved, could have the effect that the plaintiff's imputations are not capable of further injuring the plaintiff's reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's contextual imputations did not differ in substance from each other, nor, in relevant respects, from the plaintiff’s four imputations as found by the jury. Therefore, paragraph 5 of the defence is defective in form and should be struck out, with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 5 of the defence struck out; leave to replead within 14 days; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; matter stood over to Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 11 July 2003.

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the defence is struck out with leave to replead within 14 days.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs.