Lansley v Gaynon [2001] NSWSC 695

Lansley v Gaynon [2001] NSWSC 695

The republication to the Legal Services Commissioner was protected by absolute privilege under s17J of the Defamation Act 1974 as there was no factual dispute as to the purpose of the publication, and the plaintiff’s pleadings regarding the natural meaning and true innuendoes were inadequately particularised and failed to disclose a cause of action. Leave to replead true innuendoes was granted, but not republication.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application; Pleading Objections and Directions
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; parts of plaintiff’s pleading struck out with leave to replead in part; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
['absolute Privilege' 'pleading Requirements' 're Publication Liability' 'true Innuendo' 'particulars of Pleading']
['defamation Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['absolute Privilege' 'pleading Requirements' 're Publication Liability' 'true Innuendo' 'particulars of Pleading']

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 / Interlocutory Application; Pleading Objections and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether republication of the allegedly defamatory material in a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner is protected by absolute privilege under s17J of the Defamation Act 1974' 'Whether the plaintiff’s pleadings sufficiently particularise imputations and comply with procedural rules regarding true innuendo' 'Whether the original publication to a client attracts absolute privilege' 'Whether the pleadings relating to natural and ordinary meaning imputations disclose a cause of action']

Ratio Decidendi

The republication to the Legal Services Commissioner was protected by absolute privilege under s17J of the Defamation Act 1974 as there was no factual dispute as to the purpose of the publication, and the plaintiff’s pleadings regarding the natural meaning and true innuendoes were inadequately particularised and failed to disclose a cause of action. Leave to replead true innuendoes was granted, but not republication.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; parts of plaintiff’s pleading struck out with leave to replead in part; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 4, 5(b) and 6 of the further Amended Statement of Claim are struck out. Leave to replead in respect of republication is refused.' 'Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the further Amended Statement of Claim are struck out. Leave to replead in terms of true innuendo granted, with particulars to be filed and served by...