Jim Byrnes v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 635

Jim Byrnes v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 635

The Court held that many of the pleaded imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed and sufficiently distinct to go to the jury, but some were to be struck out because they were overlapping, rhetorical, not reasonably capable of arising from the publications, or otherwise defective in form. Where defects...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendant to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations and Related Application for Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application allowed in part; leave to amend granted in part; some imputations struck out, some permitted to go to the jury, costs reserved subject to further argument.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Imputations' 'reasonable Capability of Defamatory Meaning' 'role of Judge and Jury Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 (nsw)' 'overlapping Imputations' 'rhetorical Flourish in Pleadings' 'leave to Amend Pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out of Imputations' 'reasonable Capability of Defamatory Meaning' 'role of Judge and Jury Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 (nsw)' 'overlapping Imputations' 'rhetorical Flourish in Pleadings' 'leave to Amend Pleadings']

Source-derived case record

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 / Interlocutory Application by the Defendant to Strike Out Pleaded Imputations and Related Application for Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the three Sydney Morning Herald articles were reasonably capable of carrying the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff.' 'Whether particular pleaded imputations differed in substance or were impermissibly overlapping, vague, ambiguous, or rhetorical flourishes.' 'Whether imputations struck out should result in a verdict for the defendant or whether leave to replead should be granted.' 'Whether costs of the interlocutory application should be reserved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that many of the pleaded imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed and sufficiently distinct to go to the jury, but some were to be struck out because they were overlapping, rhetorical, not reasonably capable of arising from the publications, or otherwise defective in form. Where defects concerned form or clarity, leave to amend or replead was granted; where imputations were struck out and not permitted to go to the jury, they should be the subject of a verdict for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; leave to amend granted in part; some imputations struck out, some permitted to go to the jury, costs reserved subject to further argument.

Orders

  • ['I give leave to amend the statement of claim.' 'Those paragraphs of the pleadings which have been struck out and which are not, in accordance with my ruling, to go to the jury should be the subject of the verdict for the defendant.' 'Those aspects of the pleadings in relation to which I have given leave to replead...