Raymond SOLAIMAN v FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED & Anor [2008] NSWSC 847

Raymond SOLAIMAN v FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED & Anor [2008] NSWSC 847

The article was capable of conveying imputations A, B, E(i) and J, but certain other imputations were struck out because they were not reasonably capable of being conveyed, overstated the article, depended on unsupported knowledge by the plaintiff, or did not differ in substance from another imputation. UCPR 14.30(3) continued to apply to claims under the Defamation Act 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Defendant's Challenge to the Capacity of the Article to Convey Pleaded Imputations and Application to Strike Out Imputations
Outcome
Imputations D(i), D(ii), E(ii), G, H(i), H(ii) and I are struck out. Plaintiff granted leave to replead imputations C, D(ii), H(ii) and I.
Legal Topics
['capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'striking Out Imputations' 'difference in Substance Between Imputations' 'ucpr 14.30(3)' 'leave to Replead']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['capacity of Matter Complained of to Convey Imputations' 'ordinary Reasonable Reader' 'striking Out Imputations' 'difference in Substance Between Imputations' 'ucpr 14.30(3)' 'leave to Replead']

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 / Defendant's Challenge to the Capacity of the Article to Convey Pleaded Imputations and Application to Strike Out Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Sun Herald article was capable of conveying the plaintiff's pleaded defamatory imputations." 'Whether imputations should be struck out for incapacity or because they did not differ in substance from other imputations.' 'Whether UCPR 14.30(3) applies to defamation actions governed by the Defamation Act 2005.' 'Whether the plaintiff should have leave to replead certain imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The article was capable of conveying imputations A, B, E(i) and J, but certain other imputations were struck out because they were not reasonably capable of being conveyed, overstated the article, depended on unsupported knowledge by the plaintiff, or did not differ in substance from another imputation. UCPR 14.30(3) continued to apply to claims under the Defamation Act 2005.

Court Disposition

Imputations D(i), D(ii), E(ii), G, H(i), H(ii) and I are struck out. Plaintiff granted leave to replead imputations C, D(ii), H(ii) and I.

Orders

  • ['Imputation D(i) is struck out.' 'Imputation D(ii) is struck out with liberty to replead.' 'Imputation G is struck out.' 'Imputation H(i) is struck out.' 'Imputation H(ii) is struck out with leave to replead.' 'Imputation I is struck out with liberty to replead.' 'Plaintiff has leave to replead imputation C.'...