Movieco Australia Limited & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1186

Movieco Australia Limited & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1186

Imputations 4(a) and 5(a), alleging inept negotiation of deals causing investors to lose most of their investment, were capable of being carried and of being defamatory because that impression could reasonably arise from the article's discussion of the deals with Fox and Beyond, the figures stated, and investors' concern. The remaining imputations were not capable of being carried: the article did not reasonably suggest that money had been received and not accounted for, did not support the high-pitched meaning of misappropriation, and did not convey that the prospectus falsely represented expertise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Claiming Damages / Separate Trial as to Capacity and Form Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 R 2
Outcome
Imputations 4(a) and 5(a) were held capable of being carried and defamatory; verdict for the defendant on imputations 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d).
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'defamatory Meaning']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'defamatory Meaning']

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 Claiming Damages / Separate Trial as to Capacity and Form Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 R 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 4(a) and 5(a) were capable of being carried and of being defamatory.' 'Whether imputations 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) were capable of being carried in the natural and ordinary meaning of the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations 4(b) and 5(b) were bad in form by reason of ambiguity after removal of the word "wrongfully".']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 4(a) and 5(a), alleging inept negotiation of deals causing investors to lose most of their investment, were capable of being carried and of being defamatory because that impression could reasonably arise from the article's discussion of the deals with Fox and Beyond, the figures stated, and investors' concern. The remaining imputations were not capable of being carried: the article did not reasonably suggest that money had been received and not accounted for, did not support the high-pitched meaning of misappropriation, and did not convey that the prospectus falsely represented expertise.

Court Disposition

Imputations 4(a) and 5(a) were held capable of being carried and defamatory; verdict for the defendant on imputations 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d).

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4(a) and 5(a) are capable of being carried and of being defamatory.' 'Verdict for the defendant in respect of imputations 4(b) (c) (d) and 5 (b) (c) (d).' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs." 'If the plaintiff is so advised, an application further to amend is to be by the filing of a Notice of...