Waterhouse v David Syme & Co Ltd & 2 Ors [2000] NSWSC 817

Waterhouse v David Syme & Co Ltd & 2 Ors [2000] NSWSC 817

The ordinary reasonable reading of the articles did not provide a foundation for the pleaded imputations that Arthur Harris suspected the plaintiff of involvement in the torture or murder of George Brown, and imputation (i) was irrational, strained and artificial. The alleged extrinsic facts were not capable of adding an extrinsic or secondary meaning sufficient to support the true innuendo imputations. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the matters complained of were incapable of conveying the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 4, 4A, 6 and 6A of the Third Amended Statement of Claim, and the imputations were in any event defective in form.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Publications in the Sunday Age and the Sun Herald on 28 September 1997 / Separate Determination Under SCR Pt 31 R 2 of Whether the Matters Complained of Were Capable of Conveying Pleaded Imputations and Motions for Relief Concerning the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
The defendants succeeded on the separate determination; the matters complained of were held incapable of carrying the pleaded imputations, and the plaintiff was required to seek leave if he wished to file a Fourth Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'extrinsic Facts' 'pleading Form']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['imputations' 'capacity' 'natural and Ordinary Meaning' 'true Innuendo' 'extrinsic Facts' 'pleading Form']

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 Concerning Publications in the Sunday Age and the Sun Herald on 28 September 1997 / Separate Determination Under SCR Pt 31 R 2 of Whether the Matters Complained of Were Capable of Conveying Pleaded Imputations and Motions for Relief Concerning the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters complained of were capable, as a matter of law, of conveying the pleaded natural and ordinary meaning imputations in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Third Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Whether the matters complained of were capable of conveying the pleaded true innuendo imputations in paragraphs 4A and 6A by reason of the alleged extrinsic facts.' 'Whether the pleaded imputations were defective in form and liable to be struck out as embarrassing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ordinary reasonable reading of the articles did not provide a foundation for the pleaded imputations that Arthur Harris suspected the plaintiff of involvement in the torture or murder of George Brown, and imputation (i) was irrational, strained and artificial. The alleged extrinsic facts were not capable of adding an extrinsic or secondary meaning sufficient to support the true innuendo imputations. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the matters complained of were incapable of conveying the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 4, 4A, 6 and 6A of the Third Amended Statement of Claim, and the imputations were in any event defective in form.

Court Disposition

The defendants succeeded on the separate determination; the matters complained of were held incapable of carrying the pleaded imputations, and the plaintiff was required to seek leave if he wished to file a Fourth Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ['As a matter of law the matters complained of are incapable of carrying the imputations pleaded in paragraphs 4, 4A, 6 and 6A of the Third Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Within 21 days the plaintiff is to file a Notice of Motion returnable on 13 October 2000 formally seeking leave to file a Fourth Amended Statement...