Douglas v Penguin Books Australia [2002] NSWSC 363

Douglas v Penguin Books Australia [2002] NSWSC 363

Imputations 3(a) and 3(b) were struck out because they did not differ in substance. The pleaded imputation 3(d) was struck out, but the matter complained of was capable of carrying a refined defamatory meaning concerning taking unfair advantage of employees by acting as guarantor of loans. Imputation 3(e) was incapable of being defamatory because it had no defamatory sting and the relevant passage was anodyne.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Judgment on Objections to Pleaded Imputations as to Capacity and Difference in Substance
Outcome
Imputations 3(a), 3(b), and 3(d) were struck out with leave to replead; imputation 3(e) was held incapable of being defamatory and verdict entered for the defendants on that cause of action.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'difference in Substance' 'pleading Imputations']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity' 'difference in Substance' 'pleading 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 / Judgment on Objections to Pleaded Imputations as to Capacity and Difference in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 3(a) and 3(b) contravened SCR Pr 67 r 11(3) because they did not differ in substance.' 'Whether imputation 3(d), as reworded, was capable of arising from the matter complained of and being defamatory.' 'Whether imputation 3(e) was capable of being defamatory.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 3(a) and 3(b) were struck out because they did not differ in substance. The pleaded imputation 3(d) was struck out, but the matter complained of was capable of carrying a refined defamatory meaning concerning taking unfair advantage of employees by acting as guarantor of loans. Imputation 3(e) was incapable of being defamatory because it had no defamatory sting and the relevant passage was anodyne.

Court Disposition

Imputations 3(a), 3(b), and 3(d) were struck out with leave to replead; imputation 3(e) was held incapable of being defamatory and verdict entered for the defendants on that cause of action.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 3(a) and (b) are struck out by reason of not differing in substance. The plaintiff has leave to replead.' 'Imputation 3(d) is struck out. I grant leave to the plaintiff to replead in accordance with these reasons.' 'Imputation 3(e) is incapable of being defamatory and I enter a verdict in favour of the...