Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273

Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273

Imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) were sufficiently clear or capable and differed in substance where challenged; imputation (5) did not differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8), requiring election; imputation (6) was insufficiently precise because the words "lucrative racket" were colloquial and unsuitable for pleading; and imputation (8) was insufficiently clear because the reference to photographs appearing in the company's "particulars" was unclear.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Separate Trial Pursuant to UCPR 28.2 of Issues Concerning Objections to Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) allowed to stand; imputation (5) held not to differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8), requiring election; imputations (6) and (8) struck out with liberty to replead.
Legal Topics
['television Programme Publication' 'pleaded Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'rhetorical Imputations' 'difference of Substance Between Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'vagueness and Imprecision in Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['television Programme Publication' 'pleaded Imputations' 'rolled Up or Composite Imputations' 'rhetorical Imputations' 'difference of Substance Between Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'vagueness and Imprecision in 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 / Separate Trial Pursuant to UCPR 28.2 of Issues Concerning Objections to Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations were bad in form as rolled-up or composite imputations.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were rhetorical, vague or imprecise.' 'Whether certain imputations differed in substance from other pleaded imputations.' 'Whether the matter complained of was capable of conveying the imputation that the plaintiff conducted herself as manager in such a manner that she is a thief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) were sufficiently clear or capable and differed in substance where challenged; imputation (5) did not differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8), requiring election; imputation (6) was insufficiently precise because the words "lucrative racket" were colloquial and unsuitable for pleading; and imputation (8) was insufficiently clear because the reference to photographs appearing in the company's "particulars" was unclear.

Court Disposition

Imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) allowed to stand; imputation (5) held not to differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8), requiring election; imputations (6) and (8) struck out with liberty to replead.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and (9) allowed to stand.' 'Imputation (5) does not differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8); plaintiff to elect on which to go to the jury.' 'Imputation (6) struck out; plaintiff has liberty to replead.' 'Imputation (8) struck out; plaintiff has liberty to replead.']