ZUNTER v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 1054

ZUNTER v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 1054

The article, considered with its headline, photograph, caption and contents, was capable of carrying imputations (a), (b) if suitably amended to identify the relevant fire strategy, and (f), but imputation (d) was rhetorical and imputation (e) was incapable of being carried; there was no uncertainty in the form or meaning of the remaining imputations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application Concerning Imputations, Capacity and Form, With Directions for S 7 a Jury Trial
Outcome
Application determined partly in favour of each party; imputations (a), amended (b), and (f) allowed as capable, imputations (d) and (e) not allowed, with each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'form of Imputations' 's 7 a Jury Trial' 'costs']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'form of Imputations' 's 7 a Jury Trial' 'costs']

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 Concerning Imputations, Capacity and Form, With Directions for S 7 a Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matter complained of was capable of carrying the pleaded imputations defamatory of the plaintiff.' 'Whether imputation (b), referring to the strategy of the Shoalhaven Fire Control, required amendment to be supported by a fair reading of the article.' 'Whether imputations (d) and (e) were capable of being carried or were defective.' 'Whether there was uncertainty as to the form and meaning of the imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The article, considered with its headline, photograph, caption and contents, was capable of carrying imputations (a), (b) if suitably amended to identify the relevant fire strategy, and (f), but imputation (d) was rhetorical and imputation (e) was incapable of being carried; there was no uncertainty in the form or meaning of the remaining imputations.

Court Disposition

Application determined partly in favour of each party; imputations (a), amended (b), and (f) allowed as capable, imputations (d) and (e) not allowed, with each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Each party is to pay his and its own costs of this application.' 'The plaintiff is to file an amended statement of claim within fourteen days.' 'Within fourteen days thereafter the defendant is to file its 7A defence.' 'Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2, the separate trial by jury of those issues reserved to that tribunal...