Barach v The University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 99

Barach v The University of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 99

A number of imputations pleaded by the plaintiff are reasonably capable of arising from the publications complained of, based on both their natural and ordinary meanings and (where applicable) by reference to extrinsic facts. Some imputations were ruled incapable of arising or bad in form as they were ambiguous, strained, or did not differ in substance from others. The practical test involves whether confusion or uncertainty would arise at the pleading stage or trial, and whether the imputation states with clarity the defamatory meaning the plaintiff contends is conveyed by the publication.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Claim / Interlocutory Judgment on Pleadings (ruling on Capacity/strike Out of Imputations)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders on pleadings; part of the plaintiff's imputations struck out or granted leave to replead; most to go to jury.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'form and Substance of Imputations' 'slander' 'libel' 'capacity of Words to Convey Alleged Meanings']
['defamation' 'tort Law'] ['imputations' 'pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'form and Substance of Imputations' 'slander' 'libel' 'capacity of Words to Convey Alleged Meanings']

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 Claim / Interlocutory Judgment on Pleadings (ruling on Capacity/strike Out of Imputations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Which of the plaintiff's pleaded imputations in defamation are reasonably capable of arising from the alleged publications (by natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo)?" 'Whether specific imputations are bad in form, ambiguous, or do not differ in substance from others?' 'The proper approach to the pleading of imputations in defamation matters']

Ratio Decidendi

A number of imputations pleaded by the plaintiff are reasonably capable of arising from the publications complained of, based on both their natural and ordinary meanings and (where applicable) by reference to extrinsic facts. Some imputations were ruled incapable of arising or bad in form as they were ambiguous, strained, or did not differ in substance from others. The practical test involves whether confusion or uncertainty would arise at the pleading stage or trial, and whether the imputation states with clarity the defamatory meaning the plaintiff contends is conveyed by the publication.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders on pleadings; part of the plaintiff's imputations struck out or granted leave to replead; most to go to jury.

Orders

  • ['The imputations pleaded by the plaintiff should go to the jury, apart from imputations 12.4, 16.4, 23.7, 42.3, 67.3 and 73.3.' 'Imputation 88.1 should go to the jury as an innuendo, based on extrinsic facts.' 'The plaintiff has leave to replead imputations 42.6, 43.2, 49.8, 55.1, 59.3, 67.2 and 73.2.' "Defendants...