Maitland and Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 376

Maitland and Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 376

Imputations 5(a), 5(e) and 6(a) were struck out because the references to seeking or attempting to pervert the course of justice lacked sufficient specificity. Imputations 5(b), 5(c) and 6(b) differed in substance and were capable of arising and being defamatory. Although imputations 5(d), 5(f), 6(c) and 6(d) were generalised, the language, tone and tenor of the column made it appropriate for the jury to determine whether they were conveyed and defamatory. Particular (a) of aggravated damages was struck out as a tidying up matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations, Capacity, Form and Particulars of Aggravated Damages
Outcome
Some imputations and a particular of aggravated damages were struck out; remaining specified imputations were held capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'difference in Substance' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'difference in Substance' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations, Capacity, Form and Particulars of Aggravated Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pleaded imputations 5(a), 5(e) and 6(a) should be struck out for lack of specificity.' 'Whether imputations 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) were capable of being carried by the matter complained of and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether particular (a) of the particulars of aggravated damages should be struck out.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputations 5(a), 5(e) and 6(a) were struck out because the references to seeking or attempting to pervert the course of justice lacked sufficient specificity. Imputations 5(b), 5(c) and 6(b) differed in substance and were capable of arising and being defamatory. Although imputations 5(d), 5(f), 6(c) and 6(d) were generalised, the language, tone and tenor of the column made it appropriate for the jury to determine whether they were conveyed and defamatory. Particular (a) of aggravated damages was struck out as a tidying up matter.

Court Disposition

Some imputations and a particular of aggravated damages were struck out; remaining specified imputations were held capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 5(a), 5(e) and 6(a) are struck out without liberty to replead.' 'Imputations 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(b) 6(c) and 6(d) are capable of being carried and capable of being defamatory.' 'Particular (a) of aggravated damages is struck out.' 'Each party is to pay its own costs.' "The matter is to be listed...