Crismale v Mathers [2015] NSWSC 1293

Crismale v Mathers [2015] NSWSC 1293

The challenged imputations, read in the context of the relevant matters complained of, were generally reasonably capable of being conveyed and sufficiently clear in form, so they should not be struck out; imputation 10(c) required clarification by inserting 'knowingly' if it was intended to allege a knowingly false report.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / First Listing in Accordance With Practice Note SC CL 4; Rulings on Objections to the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Most objections to the pleaded imputations were rejected; imputation 10(c) was allowed to stand on the premise that it be clarified by insertion of the word 'knowingly'; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'defamatory Meaning']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'imputations' 'form and Capacity' 'defamatory Meaning']

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 / First Listing in Accordance With Practice Note SC CL 4; Rulings on Objections to the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation 2(a) was reasonably capable of being conveyed and defamatory of the plaintiff.' 'Whether the imputations pleaded in respect of the second matter complained of, including incompetence imputations and an allegation of lying about government grant monies, were capable of being conveyed.' "Whether imputation 8(a), alleging responsibility for the club's finances, was sufficiently clear in form." 'Whether the imputations pleaded as arising from the fourth and fifth matters complained of were reasonably capable of arising.' 'Whether imputation 10(c) was ambiguous as to whether the plaintiff knowingly made a false report.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged imputations, read in the context of the relevant matters complained of, were generally reasonably capable of being conveyed and sufficiently clear in form, so they should not be struck out; imputation 10(c) required clarification by inserting 'knowingly' if it was intended to allege a knowingly false report.

Court Disposition

Most objections to the pleaded imputations were rejected; imputation 10(c) was allowed to stand on the premise that it be clarified by insertion of the word 'knowingly'; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application."]