Evans v John Fairfax Publications P/L [2002] NSWSC 317

Evans v John Fairfax Publications P/L [2002] NSWSC 317

The article was capable of suggesting dishonesty or sleight-of-hand sufficient to support amended imputations (a) and (b), and was capable of suggesting incompetence sufficient to support imputation (e). However, it was not reasonably capable of suggesting that the plaintiff deliberately ran down the business and cheated shareholders, or that he misappropriated $17.6 million, so imputations (c) and (d) should not go to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application to Strike Out Certain Imputations in the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to amend imputations (a) and (b); amended imputations (a) and (b) and imputation (e) to go to the jury; imputations (c) and (d) not to go to the jury; defendant to pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'whether Imputations Are Capable of Arising' 'strike Out Application']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'whether Imputations Are Capable of Arising' 'strike Out Application']

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 / Application to Strike Out Certain Imputations in the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation (a), that the plaintiff had established a dishonest scheme involving Winepros Limited whereby he was paid $920,000.00 and $250,00.00 per annum for doing nothing, was capable of arising or was bad in form.' 'Whether imputation (b), that the plaintiff had deliberately misled shareholders of Winepros Limited for personal gain, was capable of arising and differed in substance from other imputations.' 'Whether imputation (c), that the plaintiff had cheated shareholders by deliberately running down the business and then closing it down, was capable of arising.' 'Whether imputation (d), that the plaintiff misappropriated $17.6 million in Winepros Limited, was capable of arising.' 'Whether imputation (e), that the plaintiff managed the business of Winepros Limited incompetently so as to lose much of its funds, was capable of arising.']

Ratio Decidendi

The article was capable of suggesting dishonesty or sleight-of-hand sufficient to support amended imputations (a) and (b), and was capable of suggesting incompetence sufficient to support imputation (e). However, it was not reasonably capable of suggesting that the plaintiff deliberately ran down the business and cheated shareholders, or that he misappropriated $17.6 million, so imputations (c) and (d) should not go to the jury.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to amend imputations (a) and (b); amended imputations (a) and (b) and imputation (e) to go to the jury; imputations (c) and (d) not to go to the jury; defendant to pay 60% of the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff has leave to amend imputation (a). As amended, it should go to the jury.' 'The plaintiff has leave to amend imputation (b). As amended, it should go to the jury.' 'Imputations (c) and (d) should not go to the jury.' 'Imputation (e) should go to the jury.' "Balancing wins and losses, the defendant...