MALLIK v McGEOWN & ANOR [2007] NSWSC 438

MALLIK v McGEOWN & ANOR [2007] NSWSC 438

The court concluded that the amended imputations (a) and (c) as proposed by the plaintiff were properly capable of being conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader and could proceed. However, the imputation in (b), alleging the plaintiff gave 'false evidence', was not capable of being conveyed in the sense of dishonest or perjured evidence by a reasonable reader given the article's context. The court permitted repleading of (b) only to the extent consistent with the view that the evidence was absurd or lacking credibility, but not outright falsehood.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application Regarding Pleadings/amendment of Imputations
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to amend statement of claim for certain imputations; imputation 4(b) struck out with leave to replead in terms suggested by the court; other procedural orders made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'pleadings' 'imputations' 'amendment of Statement of Claim']
['tort Law'] ['defamation' 'pleadings' 'imputations' 'amendment of Statement of Claim']

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 Application Regarding Pleadings/amendment of Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters complained of are capable of conveying the pleaded imputations to the ordinary reasonable reader' 'Whether alleged imputations should be struck out or allowed to proceed to jury consideration' 'Appropriate approach for amendment of pleadings in defamation matters']

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the amended imputations (a) and (c) as proposed by the plaintiff were properly capable of being conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader and could proceed. However, the imputation in (b), alleging the plaintiff gave 'false evidence', was not capable of being conveyed in the sense of dishonest or perjured evidence by a reasonable reader given the article's context. The court permitted repleading of (b) only to the extent consistent with the view that the evidence was absurd or lacking credibility, but not outright falsehood.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to amend statement of claim for certain imputations; imputation 4(b) struck out with leave to replead in terms suggested by the court; other procedural orders made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff granted leave to amend paragraphs 4(a) and 4(c) per 'Plaintiff's proposed amended imputations' document." 'Imputation in paragraph 4(b) of the statement of claim struck out.' 'Plaintiff granted leave to amend the statement of claim to replead former paragraph 4(b) consistently with observations in...