Moloney v Bales and Anor [2002] NSWSC 381

Moloney v Bales and Anor [2002] NSWSC 381

The Court held that the publications were capable of conveying the imputations alleged by the plaintiff and that these imputations (with some duplicative exceptions) were capable of being defamatory. The determination rests on the reasonable possibility that an ordinary reader could view the statements made in the publications, taken in their natural and ordinary meaning and context, as imputing serious deficiencies in the plaintiff’s competence, business ability, energy, and capacity to manage ABC Enterprises. Where imputations overlapped (e.g., in the case of being 'lazy' and 'lacking energy'), the plaintiff was ordered to elect between them for trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations—capacity to Be Defamatory (separate Trial of Question of Law Under SCR Part 31 R 2)
Outcome
Imputations held to be capable of being carried and of being defamatory; procedural orders made for further conduct of the trial
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'difference in Substance Between Imputations' 'defences and Election of Imputations' 'procedural Orders in Defamation Cases']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Meaning' 'difference in Substance Between Imputations' 'defences and Election of Imputations' 'procedural Orders in Defamation Cases']

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 / Interlocutory Determination of Imputations—capacity to Be Defamatory (separate Trial of Question of Law Under SCR Part 31 R 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the publications complained of are capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations to an ordinary reasonable reader' 'Whether certain pleaded imputations differ in substance or are duplicative' 'Whether any pleaded imputation is incapable as a matter of law of being carried by the matter complained of']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the publications were capable of conveying the imputations alleged by the plaintiff and that these imputations (with some duplicative exceptions) were capable of being defamatory. The determination rests on the reasonable possibility that an ordinary reader could view the statements made in the publications, taken in their natural and ordinary meaning and context, as imputing serious deficiencies in the plaintiff’s competence, business ability, energy, and capacity to manage ABC Enterprises. Where imputations overlapped (e.g., in the case of being 'lazy' and 'lacking energy'), the plaintiff was ordered to elect between them for trial.

Court Disposition

Imputations held to be capable of being carried and of being defamatory; procedural orders made for further conduct of the trial

Orders

  • ['Imputations 4 & 8(a), (b), (c), (d) are capable of being carried and are capable of being defamatory.' 'Imputations 10(a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) and 11(a) are capable of being carried and are capable of being defamatory.' 'Plaintiff to elect between imputations 10(c) and (f).' 'Defendants to file defences...