BYRNES v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1131

BYRNES v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1131

Leave was granted only for proposed imputations (a)(i), (b)(i) and (c)(i). Proposed imputation (a) was not allowed because the words "property developer" were surplusage and the legitimate complaint was captured by "twice bankrupt". Proposed imputation (b) was not allowed because "not genuine" was too imprecise and bad in form. Proposed imputation (b)(i) was not bad in form and could be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as conveying deceit despite the fine print. Proposed imputation (c)(i) was capable of being sustained by the matter complained of and capable of being defamatory. Proposed imputation (c) had been abandoned.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim Concerning Imputations Arising From a Second Matter Complained of
Outcome
Leave granted in part to file a further amended statement of claim; some proposed imputations excluded or abandoned; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'form of Imputations' 'capacity' 'further Amended Statement of Claim']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'form of Imputations' 'capacity' 'further Amended Statement of Claim']

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 / Application for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim Concerning Imputations Arising From a Second Matter Complained of

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should have leave to plead proposed imputations concerning the Australian Financial Review publication of 27 August 2003' 'Whether proposed imputation (a), or alternatively (a)(i), was available' 'Whether proposed imputation (b) was bad in form because of ambiguity in the expression "not genuine"' 'Whether proposed imputation (b)(i) was capable of arising and was not bad in form' 'Whether proposed imputation (c)(i) was capable of being sustained and capable of being defamatory']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted only for proposed imputations (a)(i), (b)(i) and (c)(i). Proposed imputation (a) was not allowed because the words "property developer" were surplusage and the legitimate complaint was captured by "twice bankrupt". Proposed imputation (b) was not allowed because "not genuine" was too imprecise and bad in form. Proposed imputation (b)(i) was not bad in form and could be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as conveying deceit despite the fine print. Proposed imputation (c)(i) was capable of being sustained by the matter complained of and capable of being defamatory. Proposed imputation (c) had been abandoned.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part to file a further amended statement of claim; some proposed imputations excluded or abandoned; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to file further amended statement of claim, pleading, in relation to second matter complained of, proposed imputations (a)(i), (b)(i), (c)(i).' 'Imputation (b) is bad in form and is not to be included in the further amended statement of claim.' 'Imputation (c) has been abandoned.' 'Each party to pay...