Hall & Ors v Gould [2002] NSWSC 359

Hall & Ors v Gould [2002] NSWSC 359

The radio broadcast and Sun Herald article, read or heard in context and applying the ordinary reasonable listener or reader standard, were capable of carrying each challenged imputation and those imputations were capable of being defamatory; the objections based on form, ambiguity, overstatement and lack of capacity did not justify removing the imputations from the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Objections to the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations and Order for Separate Trial of S7 a Issues by Jury
Outcome
Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 5(d) and 5(e) were held capable of arising and capable of being defamatory; directions were made for defence, jury determination and separate trial, with costs to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Carry Defamatory Meaning' 'form of Imputations' 'separate Trial' 'aggravated Damages Particulars']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Carry Defamatory Meaning' 'form of Imputations' 'separate Trial' '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 / Determination of Objections to the Form and Capacity of Pleaded Imputations and Order for Separate Trial of S7 a Issues by Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 5(d) and 5(e) were proper in form, capable of being carried by the matters complained of, and capable of being defamatory.' 'Whether the pleaded use of words such as "perversely" and "corruptly" created defects in form or uncertainty.' 'Whether a publication referring to one occasion could carry a general charge that the judiciary panel acted so unfairly that players could not expect a fair hearing.' 'Whether the Sun Herald article was capable of conveying that the plaintiffs conspired to find Craig Smith guilty despite knowing the incident was accidental.' 'Whether further and better particulars should be sought for the pleaded aggravated damages particular alleging express malice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The radio broadcast and Sun Herald article, read or heard in context and applying the ordinary reasonable listener or reader standard, were capable of carrying each challenged imputation and those imputations were capable of being defamatory; the objections based on form, ambiguity, overstatement and lack of capacity did not justify removing the imputations from the jury.

Court Disposition

Imputations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 5(d) and 5(e) were held capable of arising and capable of being defamatory; directions were made for defence, jury determination and separate trial, with costs to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Imputations 3(a), (b), (c) and 5 (d) and (e) are capable of arising and capable of being defamatory.' 'Within 14 days the defendant is to file a defence to the Statement of Claim in relation to issues for determination by the jury under s7A of the Defamation Act, 1974.' 'After the expiry of 21 days the matter is...