Scott Gartrell v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 632

Scott Gartrell v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 632

Imputation 2(a) was struck out because, in its present form, it failed to distil the defamatory meaning said to be attributed specifically to Mr Gartrell and instead appeared to state a broader social observation about persons moving from government employment to the private sector. However, because the article was capable of conveying a meaning higher than the separate imputation that the plaintiff's conduct warranted investigation, leave to replead was granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Objection to Pleaded Imputation
Outcome
Imputation 2(a) in the amended statement of claim struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay specified costs.
Legal Topics
['pleading of Imputations' 'defamatory Sting' 'strike Out' 'leave to Replead']
['defamation'] ['pleading of Imputations' 'defamatory Sting' 'strike Out' '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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Objection to Pleaded Imputation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether imputation 2(a) in the amended statement of claim adequately distilled a defamatory sting allegedly directed at the plaintiff.' 'Whether imputation 2(a) should be struck out and, if so, whether leave to replead should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation 2(a) was struck out because, in its present form, it failed to distil the defamatory meaning said to be attributed specifically to Mr Gartrell and instead appeared to state a broader social observation about persons moving from government employment to the private sector. However, because the article was capable of conveying a meaning higher than the separate imputation that the plaintiff's conduct warranted investigation, leave to replead was granted.

Court Disposition

Imputation 2(a) in the amended statement of claim struck out with leave to replead; plaintiff ordered to pay specified costs.

Orders

  • ['Imputation 2(a) in the amended statement of claim will not go to the jury.' 'Imputation 2(a) is struck out with leave to replead.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the previous listing for argument on 4 April 2011 and of 16 June 2011."]