Broome v Richardson & Anor [2002] NSWSC 446

Broome v Richardson & Anor [2002] NSWSC 446

Leave to file the second further amended statement of claim was granted except for proposed imputations 4(c) and 6(b), because the use of "condoned" did not make the imputations impermissibly ambiguous and most pleaded imputations were capable of being conveyed by the broadcasts, including by linkage between the plaintiff and the NCA. However, the statements about telephone tapping, although capable of suggesting abuse of power, impropriety or indiscriminate tapping, were not capable of conveying that the tapping was illegal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application by the Plaintiff for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave granted in part; proposed imputations 4(c) and 6(b) excluded; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'radio Broadcasts' 'composite Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'radio Broadcasts' 'composite 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 / Application by the Plaintiff for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to file a second further amended statement of claim should be refused as futile because the proposed pleading was defective.' 'Whether use of the word "condoned" made the proposed imputations ambiguous or uncertain.' 'Whether the broadcasts were capable of conveying the pleaded imputations concerning the plaintiff.' 'Whether references to telephone tapping were capable of conveying imputations of illegality.' 'Whether the three radio broadcast segments could be relied on together to plead a composite imputation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the second further amended statement of claim was granted except for proposed imputations 4(c) and 6(b), because the use of "condoned" did not make the imputations impermissibly ambiguous and most pleaded imputations were capable of being conveyed by the broadcasts, including by linkage between the plaintiff and the NCA. However, the statements about telephone tapping, although capable of suggesting abuse of power, impropriety or indiscriminate tapping, were not capable of conveying that the tapping was illegal.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part; proposed imputations 4(c) and 6(b) excluded; costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to the plaintiff to file a second further amended statement of claim, in the form proposed (with the exception of the proposed imputations numbered 4(c) and 6(b)), and subject to the further amendment of imputation 8(a);' 'I order that the plaintiff pay any costs thrown away by the amendment but...