Rodgers v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 180

Rodgers v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 180

Imputation 6(b), alleging that the first plaintiff treated clients of his real estate business unfairly in the first matter complained of, was not capable of being conveyed because the first publication identified no specific conduct properly described as unfair. The remaining challenged imputations were capable of being conveyed when the publications were considered as a whole, including their presentation as exposés, and the challenged imputations sufficiently differed in substance. Leave was granted to add imputation 16(g), no objection being maintained, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs because the defendant succeeded only on one objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Determination of Challenges to Imputations Pleaded by the First Plaintiff and Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; imputation 6(b) struck out; all other imputations pleaded in paragraphs 6, 11 and 16 to go to the jury; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'pleadings' 'capacity' 'form of Imputation' 'strike Out' 'leave to Amend' 'costs']
['tort' 'defamation' 'injurious Falsehood' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'pleadings' 'capacity' 'form of Imputation' 'strike Out' 'leave to Amend' 'costs']

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

Civil Proceedings for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Determination of Challenges to Imputations Pleaded by the First Plaintiff and Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether challenged imputations pleaded by the first plaintiff in relation to the first, second and third matters complained of were capable of being conveyed.' 'Whether pleaded imputations using concepts such as unfairness, disreputable conduct and dishonesty lacked precision or did not differ in substance from other imputations.' 'Whether the first plaintiff should have leave to amend the statement of claim to add imputation 16(g), that he was incompetent in his failure to sell the property within four months.' 'What costs order should be made on the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation 6(b), alleging that the first plaintiff treated clients of his real estate business unfairly in the first matter complained of, was not capable of being conveyed because the first publication identified no specific conduct properly described as unfair. The remaining challenged imputations were capable of being conveyed when the publications were considered as a whole, including their presentation as exposés, and the challenged imputations sufficiently differed in substance. Leave was granted to add imputation 16(g), no objection being maintained, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs because the defendant succeeded only on one objection.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; imputation 6(b) struck out; all other imputations pleaded in paragraphs 6, 11 and 16 to go to the jury; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the first plaintiff to amend the statement of claim by adding the following imputation: "16(g) was incompetent in his failure to sell the property within four months".' 'Strike out imputation 6(b).' 'All imputations (except 6(b)) pleaded in paragraphs 6, 11 and 16 are to go to the jury.' "Defendant...