Haertsch v Andrews & Anor [1999] NSWSC 359

Haertsch v Andrews & Anor [1999] NSWSC 359

The imputations alleging gross negligence and gross incompetence differed sufficiently in substance, and the matter complained of was not incapable of conveying the pleaded imputations. The pleaded meanings arguably arose from what was expressly stated or implicit in the publication, including the surgery carried out by the plaintiff, its corrective character, the timing, and the assertion that Rachael had been bedridden for practical purposes. Whether the imputations were in fact conveyed was a matter for the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations on Capacity and Difference in Substance
Outcome
Defendants' objections rejected; pleaded imputations to go to the jury.
Legal Topics
['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'inference Upon Inference']
['defamation Law'] ['defamatory Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'difference in Substance' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'inference Upon Inference']

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 / Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations on Capacity and Difference in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations of gross negligence and gross incompetence differed in substance.' 'Whether the matter complained of was capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations depended on impermissible inference upon inference.' 'Whether the abbreviation "SRS" affected the capacity of the matter complained of to convey the imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The imputations alleging gross negligence and gross incompetence differed sufficiently in substance, and the matter complained of was not incapable of conveying the pleaded imputations. The pleaded meanings arguably arose from what was expressly stated or implicit in the publication, including the surgery carried out by the plaintiff, its corrective character, the timing, and the assertion that Rachael had been bedridden for practical purposes. Whether the imputations were in fact conveyed was a matter for the jury.

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections rejected; pleaded imputations to go to the jury.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4(a) - (f) inclusive shall go to the jury.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'The parties have liberty to file, by consent, orders and directions for the further conduct of the matter in the Defamation List, within 14 days.' 'At the expiry of 14 days, liberty to restore to the...