Di Girolamo v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1594

Di Girolamo v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1594

The Court ruled on each challenged imputation by assessing whether the article as a whole was reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded meaning and whether the pleading clearly distilled the defamatory sting. Several imputations were capable of being conveyed because the articles' tenor and insinuations could support allegations of lying or corrupt association, while others were struck out because they were ambiguous, imprecise, bad in form, or required a strained reading. The aggravated damages objections were not accepted because the challenged issues could be tested at trial and the defendants sufficiently knew the case they had to meet.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Objections to Imputations and Particulars of Aggravated Damages
Outcome
Rulings given as to imputations; some imputations held capable of being conveyed, some struck out as bad in form with leave to re-plead, some held not capable of being conveyed, and objections to particulars of aggravated damages rejected.
Legal Topics
['pleading Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'strike Out for Embarrassing Pleading' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'strike Out for Embarrassing Pleading' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Objections to Imputations and Particulars of Aggravated Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particular pleaded imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matters complained of.' 'Whether particular pleaded imputations were bad in form because they were ambiguous or failed to distil the defamatory sting with sufficient precision.' 'Whether particulars of aggravated damages alleging promotion or repetition of articles and a campaign against the plaintiff should be struck out or further particularised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled on each challenged imputation by assessing whether the article as a whole was reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded meaning and whether the pleading clearly distilled the defamatory sting. Several imputations were capable of being conveyed because the articles' tenor and insinuations could support allegations of lying or corrupt association, while others were struck out because they were ambiguous, imprecise, bad in form, or required a strained reading. The aggravated damages objections were not accepted because the challenged issues could be tested at trial and the defendants sufficiently knew the case they had to meet.

Court Disposition

Rulings given as to imputations; some imputations held capable of being conveyed, some struck out as bad in form with leave to re-plead, some held not capable of being conveyed, and objections to particulars of aggravated damages rejected.

Orders

  • ['First matter complained of: imputation (a) ambiguous and liable to be struck out with leave to re-plead; imputations (b) and (c) reasonably capable of being conveyed.' 'Third matter complained of: imputation (a) struck out in its present form with leave to re-plead; imputation (b) reasonably capable of being...