Karadonis v Random House Australia Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 891

Karadonis v Random House Australia Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 891

The challenged imputations, including proposed imputation (f), were sufficiently clear, supported by the matter complained of, proper in form, capable of arising, and capable of being defamatory; accordingly imputations (a)-(f) should go to the jury and the question whether the matter complained of carries them should be separately determined under s 7A(3) of the Defamation Act 1974 (as amended).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application Concerning Imputations, Capacity and Form Before Referral to Jury
Outcome
Imputations (a)-(f) inclusive will go to the jury; separate determination ordered; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'separate Determination by Jury']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'form' 'separate Determination by Jury']

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 / Application Concerning Imputations, Capacity and Form Before Referral to Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations (c), (d), (e) and proposed imputation (f) were proper in form.' 'Whether those imputations were capable of arising from the matter complained of.' 'Whether those imputations were capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether the question whether the matter complained of carries imputations (a)-(f) should be separately determined by a jury under s 7A(3) of the Defamation Act 1974 (as amended).']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged imputations, including proposed imputation (f), were sufficiently clear, supported by the matter complained of, proper in form, capable of arising, and capable of being defamatory; accordingly imputations (a)-(f) should go to the jury and the question whether the matter complained of carries them should be separately determined under s 7A(3) of the Defamation Act 1974 (as amended).

Court Disposition

Imputations (a)-(f) inclusive will go to the jury; separate determination ordered; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Imputation (a) - (f) inclusive will go to the jury.' 'I order the separate determination of the question of fact as to whether the matter complained of carries the imputations (a) - (f) inclusive by the jury in accordance with s 7A(3) of the Defamation Act 1974 (as amended).' 'I place the matter in the Holding...