Ron Woodham v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1204

Ron Woodham v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1204

Contextual imputations (B)(1) and (C)(1) were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, differed in substance from the plaintiff's imputation 4(c), and were capable of being conveyed at the same time as and in addition to it. Contextual imputations (B)(2) and (C)(2) were not reasonably capable of being conveyed because the publication plainly alleged that the plaintiff asked Mr Cumming to lie, not merely to acquiesce in a lie. Imputation (D), although capable of arising, was not "another imputation" under s 16 because it was only an alternative formulation or inseverable aspect of the plaintiff's imputation 4(f). The Polly Peck interstate defences could not rely on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings Concerning Publication of an Article in Good Weekend / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Strike Out Contextual Truth Defences Under S 16 of the Defamation Act 1974, Polly Peck Interstate Defences, and Mitigation Particulars
Outcome
Plaintiff's strike out motion allowed in part; contextual imputations (B)(1) and (C)(1) in the New South Wales s 16 defence were ruled capable, while specified contextual, Polly Peck and mitigation particulars were struck out.
Legal Topics
['pleading Imputations' 'contextual Imputations' 'contextual Truth' 'polly Peck Defences' 'strike Out Application' 'interstate Publication']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading Imputations' 'contextual Imputations' 'contextual Truth' 'polly Peck Defences' 'strike Out Application' 'interstate Publication']

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 Publication of an Article in Good Weekend / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to Strike Out Contextual Truth Defences Under S 16 of the Defamation Act 1974, Polly Peck Interstate Defences, and Mitigation Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's contextual imputations were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of." 'Whether the defendant\'s contextual imputations were "another imputation" within s 16(1) of the Defamation Act 1974.' "Whether the defendant could maintain Polly Peck interstate defences based on imputations different in substance from the plaintiff's imputations." 'Whether a Polly Peck defence was available in Queensland.' "Whether particulars relying on the truth of contextual or defendant's imputations could be maintained in mitigation of damages."]

Ratio Decidendi

Contextual imputations (B)(1) and (C)(1) were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, differed in substance from the plaintiff's imputation 4(c), and were capable of being conveyed at the same time as and in addition to it. Contextual imputations (B)(2) and (C)(2) were not reasonably capable of being conveyed because the publication plainly alleged that the plaintiff asked Mr Cumming to lie, not merely to acquiesce in a lie. Imputation (D), although capable of arising, was not "another imputation" under s 16 because it was only an alternative formulation or inseverable aspect of the plaintiff's imputation 4(f). The Polly Peck interstate defences could not rely on...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's strike out motion allowed in part; contextual imputations (B)(1) and (C)(1) in the New South Wales s 16 defence were ruled capable, while specified contextual, Polly Peck and mitigation particulars were struck out.

Orders

  • ['That imputations (B)(2), (C)(2), and (D) in para 4, I(c)(1) be struck out.' 'That imputations (A), (B)(1), (B)(2), (C)(1), and (C)(2) in paras 4, II(c)(1), 4, III(c)(1), and 4, V(d)(1) be struck out.' 'That paras 4, II(d), 4, III(d), and 4, V(e) be struck out.' 'That para 4, IV(c) and (d) be struck out.' 'That the...