Scott v Jones & Anor [2002] NSWSC 210

Scott v Jones & Anor [2002] NSWSC 210

The plaintiff's identification particulars for the first broadcast were inadequate because the case was not one of notoriety and the defendants were entitled to particulars identifying persons, representative of relevant classes, who understood the publication to refer to the plaintiff by reason of specified facts. Imputation 4(a), imputations 4(a) and 4(c) as differing in substance, imputation 4(e) as amended, and imputation 6(l) were capable as a matter of law. Imputation 6(m) was incapable of being carried by the second matter complained of. Several aggravated damages particulars lacked sufficient facts, matters and circumstances and were struck out with leave to re-particularise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Two Radio Broadcasts / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Particulars, Imputations and Aggravated Damages
Outcome
Objections allowed in part and dismissed in part; plaintiff given leave to amend; defendants ordered to pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['identification' 'imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'aggravated Damages' 'particulars' 'strike Out']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['identification' 'imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'aggravated Damages' 'particulars' 'strike Out']

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 Concerning Two Radio Broadcasts / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Particulars, Imputations and Aggravated Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's particulars of identification for the first matter complained of were adequate where the plaintiff was not named." 'Whether imputation 4(a) was capable of being carried by the first matter complained of and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether imputations 4(a) and 4(c) differed in substance.' 'Whether imputation 4(e), as amended, was capable of being carried by the first matter complained of and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether imputation 6(l) was capable of being carried by the second matter complained of and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether imputation 6(m) was capable of being carried by the second matter complained of.' 'Whether particulars of aggravated damages 7(b)(ii), (v), (vi) and (vii) were deficient.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's identification particulars for the first broadcast were inadequate because the case was not one of notoriety and the defendants were entitled to particulars identifying persons, representative of relevant classes, who understood the publication to refer to the plaintiff by reason of specified facts. Imputation 4(a), imputations 4(a) and 4(c) as differing in substance, imputation 4(e) as amended, and imputation 6(l) were capable as a matter of law. Imputation 6(m) was incapable of being carried by the second matter complained of. Several aggravated damages particulars lacked sufficient facts, matters and circumstances and were struck out with leave to re-particularise.

Court Disposition

Objections allowed in part and dismissed in part; plaintiff given leave to amend; defendants ordered to pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputation 4(a) is capable as a matter of law of being carried by the first matter complained of and is capable of being defamatory.' 'Imputations 4(a) and 4(c) differ in substance.' 'Imputation 4(e), as amended, is as a matter of law capable of being carried by the first matter complained of and is capable of...