Russell & Anor v The State of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 769

Russell & Anor v The State of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 769

The pleaded imputations were struck out because, in light of the family relationships conveyed by the article, the repeated phrase "their son" was confusing and required clarification; the plaintiffs were granted leave to replead separate imputations for each plaintiff and to plead imputations (c) and (d) as...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations and Capacity Arguments
Outcome
Imputations struck out; leave granted to the plaintiffs to replead; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'pleading Imputations' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw), S7 a Trial']
['defamation Law'] ['imputations' 'capacity to Convey Defamatory Imputations' 'pleading Imputations' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw), S7 a Trial']

Source-derived case record

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 Determination of Objections to Pleaded Imputations and Capacity Arguments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded imputations should be struck out because the phrase "their son" was confusing given the family relationships conveyed by the article.' "Whether the article was reasonably capable of conveying imputations that the plaintiffs were guilty of child abuse and had caused the author's brother to turn to drugs by abusing him." "Whether the imputations alleging lack of care about the welfare of the author's brother and lack of care if he died differed in substance or should be pleaded as alternatives." "Whether the article was capable of conveying the imputations concerning lack of care about the welfare of the author's brother."]

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded imputations were struck out because, in light of the family relationships conveyed by the article, the repeated phrase "their son" was confusing and required clarification; the plaintiffs were granted leave to replead separate imputations for each plaintiff and to plead imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives.

Court Disposition

Imputations struck out; leave granted to the plaintiffs to replead; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Each of the imputations is struck out.' 'The plaintiffs are granted leave to replead by pleading separate imputations in relation to each plaintiff individually.' 'The plaintiffs are granted leave to replead imputations (c) and (d) as alternatives.' 'No order as to costs.']