Maitland & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369

Maitland & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369

Imputations alleging that the plaintiffs sought to pervert the course of justice were struck out because the expression was elusive in lay meaning and lacked specificity and clarity. Imputations 5(b) and 5(c) were capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory. The general imputations concerning condoning violent rampages, attempts to pervert the course of justice or standover tactics were not capable of being carried in general terms because the article was incident specific, although leave to replead incident-specific imputations was granted for some of them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Judgment on Imputations, Including Form, Capacity and General Specific Issues
Outcome
Some imputations were struck out without liberty to replead; some were held capable of being carried and defamatory; verdict was entered for the defendant on other imputations with leave to replead; each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'pleading Particulars' 'general and Incident Specific Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'pleading Particulars' 'general and Incident Specific Imputations']

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 Judgment on Imputations, Including Form, Capacity and General Specific Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations were sufficiently specific and clear.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were capable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether general imputations could be pleaded where the article referred to specific incidents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations alleging that the plaintiffs sought to pervert the course of justice were struck out because the expression was elusive in lay meaning and lacked specificity and clarity. Imputations 5(b) and 5(c) were capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory. The general imputations concerning condoning violent rampages, attempts to pervert the course of justice or standover tactics were not capable of being carried in general terms because the article was incident specific, although leave to replead incident-specific imputations was granted for some of them.

Court Disposition

Some imputations were struck out without liberty to replead; some were held capable of being carried and defamatory; verdict was entered for the defendant on other imputations with leave to replead; each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 5(a) and 5(e) are struck out without liberty to replead.' 'Imputations 5(b) and (c) are capable of being carried and are capable off being defamatory.' 'Verdict is entered for the defendant in respect of imputations 5(d) and (f); the plaintiffs have leave to replead.' 'Imputation 6(a) is struck out...