Monte & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 209

Monte & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 209

The pleaded separate perjury and lying imputations did not differ in substance because the article conveyed one general meaning that the plaintiffs intentionally gave false evidence in Federal Court proceedings, with the specific dates and occasions being only embarrassing detail. However, a properly particularised perjury imputation pleaded as a true innuendo could differ from a lying imputation because statutory perjury contains the additional ingredient of materiality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Objection to Pleaded Imputations and Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
The defendant's objections were upheld; the pleaded imputations were struck out; leave to amend was granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'perjury' 'strike Out of Embarrassing Pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'criminal Law'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'perjury' 'strike Out of Embarrassing Pleadings']

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 / Interlocutory Objection to Pleaded Imputations and Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first plaintiff's pleaded perjury imputations differed in substance from his pleaded lying imputations." 'Whether the multiple pleaded imputations concerning different dates and instances of evidence differed in substance or were merely embarrassing detail.' "Whether the second plaintiff's perjury and lying imputations differed in substance." 'Whether leave should be granted to plead a single lying imputation by natural and ordinary meaning and a single perjury imputation by true innuendo.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded separate perjury and lying imputations did not differ in substance because the article conveyed one general meaning that the plaintiffs intentionally gave false evidence in Federal Court proceedings, with the specific dates and occasions being only embarrassing detail. However, a properly particularised perjury imputation pleaded as a true innuendo could differ from a lying imputation because statutory perjury contains the additional ingredient of materiality.

Court Disposition

The defendant's objections were upheld; the pleaded imputations were struck out; leave to amend was granted; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (a) to (j) are struck out as infringing SCR Pt 67 r 11(3) as between imputations (a) to (e) themselves, as between imputations (f) to (j) themselves and as between (a) – (e) and (f) – (j).' 'Imputations (k) and (l) are struck out on the basis of the infringement of SCR Pt 67 r 11(3).' 'Leave is granted...