Ell v Milne (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 599

Ell v Milne (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 599

Imputation (c) was not defamatory because the reference to the man being suspected by police of serious crimes of violence was descriptive, and the remaining assertion that Mr Ell supported Mr McGurk to obtain bail in order to advance his own business interests was anodyne and conveyed no defamatory sting. Imputation (f) was defamatory because it asserted that the way Mr Ell conducted his property development business was by employing a person with a reputation for violence, necessarily conveying that he knew he was employing such a person.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Separate Question / Ex Tempore Rulings on Whether Plaintiff's Imputations (c) and (f), If Conveyed, Were Defamatory
Outcome
Plaintiff's imputation (c) is found not to be defamatory; plaintiff's imputation (f) is found to be defamatory.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'defamatory Meaning' 'separate Question']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'defamatory Meaning' 'separate Question']

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

Separate Question / Ex Tempore Rulings on Whether Plaintiff's Imputations (c) and (f), If Conveyed, Were Defamatory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's imputation (c), that the plaintiff paid $100,000 bail for a man suspected by police of serious crimes of violence in order to advance his business interests, was defamatory." "Whether the plaintiff's imputation (f), that the plaintiff conducted his business with regard to property development by employing a person with a reputation for violence, was defamatory."]

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation (c) was not defamatory because the reference to the man being suspected by police of serious crimes of violence was descriptive, and the remaining assertion that Mr Ell supported Mr McGurk to obtain bail in order to advance his own business interests was anodyne and conveyed no defamatory sting. Imputation (f) was defamatory because it asserted that the way Mr Ell conducted his property development business was by employing a person with a reputation for violence, necessarily conveying that he knew he was employing such a person.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's imputation (c) is found not to be defamatory; plaintiff's imputation (f) is found to be defamatory.

Orders

  • ['Imputation (c) is not defamatory.' 'Imputation (f) is defamatory.']