KRISS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 319

KRISS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 319

The matter complained of was incapable of carrying the challenged imputations because the article expressly included favourable judicial observations that the plaintiff was fit and proper, did not suggest that readmission was undeserved, did not attribute any defamatory act or condition to the plaintiff by suggesting Jodee Rich as a client, and could not be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as defamatory merely because it stated that the plaintiff could not pay costs and was bankrupted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings With a Count in Injurious Falsehood / Separate Trial as to Legal Issues as to Capacity Under SCR Pt 31 R 2
Outcome
Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e) and 4(a) were held incapable of being carried; leave to amend was granted; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo']
['defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form of Imputations' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo']

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 With a Count in Injurious Falsehood / Separate Trial as to Legal Issues as to Capacity Under SCR Pt 31 R 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e) and 4(a) were capable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'Whether challenged imputations were defective in form.' 'Whether the true innuendo pleaded in the same terms as imputation 3(b) was capable of being carried.']

Ratio Decidendi

The matter complained of was incapable of carrying the challenged imputations because the article expressly included favourable judicial observations that the plaintiff was fit and proper, did not suggest that readmission was undeserved, did not attribute any defamatory act or condition to the plaintiff by suggesting Jodee Rich as a client, and could not be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as defamatory merely because it stated that the plaintiff could not pay costs and was bankrupted.

Court Disposition

Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(e) and 4(a) were held incapable of being carried; leave to amend was granted; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 3(a), (b), (c) and (e) and 4(a) are incapable of being carried by the matter complained of.' 'The plaintiff has leave to file an amended statement of claim within 14 days of today.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs." "The action is listed in the Registrar's Defamation Directions List on 2...