O'Neill v Jones & Anor [1999] NSWSC 270

O'Neill v Jones & Anor [1999] NSWSC 270

The broadcasts and their tone were capable of conveying imputations 6(a), 6(b), 6(e), 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c), and those imputations were capable of going to the jury. Imputations 6(c) and 6(d) were struck out because they did not differ in substance and were deficient in form, with leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Motion Concerning Imputations Founded Upon Questions of Capacity, Form and Difference in Substance
Outcome
Defendants' motion succeeded only in respect of imputations 6(c) and 6(d); the remaining challenged imputations were allowed to go to the jury, with costs to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'difference in Substance']
['defamation' 'common Law'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'difference in Substance']

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 / Defendants' Motion Concerning Imputations Founded Upon Questions of Capacity, Form and Difference in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pleaded imputations from the first broadcast were capable of being defamatory and capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations 6(c) and 6(d) differed in substance and were adequately pleaded in form, including causal connection.' 'Whether pleaded imputations from the second broadcast were capable of being conveyed and should go to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The broadcasts and their tone were capable of conveying imputations 6(a), 6(b), 6(e), 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c), and those imputations were capable of going to the jury. Imputations 6(c) and 6(d) were struck out because they did not differ in substance and were deficient in form, with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion succeeded only in respect of imputations 6(c) and 6(d); the remaining challenged imputations were allowed to go to the jury, with costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 6(a), (b) and (e) will go to the jury.' 'Imputations 6(c) and (d) are struck out as not differing in substance and as being deficient in form, with leave to replead.' 'Imputations 7(a), (b) and (c) will go to the jury.' 'The plaintiff has leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days.'...