Cohen v Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home & 3 Ors [2003] NSWSC 502

Cohen v Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home & 3 Ors [2003] NSWSC 502

The Court struck out only those pleaded imputations and true innuendo imputations that the relevant matters complained of were not capable of conveying, that overstated the publication, that were bad in form, or that could not be supported by the pleaded extrinsic facts; other imputations were allowed to stand, subject in some instances to election where they did not differ in substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations and True Innuendo Imputations
Outcome
Defendants' objections were partly upheld; numerous imputations and parts of the true innuendo pleading were struck out, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to replead.
Legal Topics
['capacity to Convey Imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'differences in Substance' 'true Innuendo' 'pleadings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['capacity to Convey Imputations' 'capacity to Defame' 'differences in Substance' 'true Innuendo' 'pleadings']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations and True Innuendo Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each matter complained of was capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations.' 'Whether particular pleaded imputations were sufficiently precise or bad in form.' 'Whether particular imputations were capable of being defamatory in context.' 'Whether groups of imputations differed in substance for the purposes of Supreme Court Rules Part 67, Rule 11(3).' 'Whether pleaded extrinsic facts supported the true innuendo imputations for the matters complained of.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court struck out only those pleaded imputations and true innuendo imputations that the relevant matters complained of were not capable of conveying, that overstated the publication, that were bad in form, or that could not be supported by the pleaded extrinsic facts; other imputations were allowed to stand, subject in some instances to election where they did not differ in substance.

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections were partly upheld; numerous imputations and parts of the true innuendo pleading were struck out, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to replead.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv) and (a)(v) are struck out.' 'Imputations (b)(ii), (b)(iii), (b)(iv) and (b)(v) are struck out.' 'Imputation (c)(ii) is struck out.' 'Imputations (d)(i), (d)(ii), (d)(v), (d)(x), (d)(xi), (d)(xiii), (d)(xiv) and (d)(xvi) are struck out.' 'Imputations (e)(xx) and (e)(xxi) are...