Saravinovski v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 919

Saravinovski v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 919

Imputation (a), that the plaintiff was a corrupt Mayor, was not bad in form because the article's layout and content were capable of conveying a strong impression of a single kind of corrupt conduct, namely participating in approval of a contentious development application without disclosing prior dealings with the developer. Imputations (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) were bad in form because their language lacked sufficient specificity and was likely to cause confusion as to the defamatory meaning for which the plaintiff contended, so they were struck out with leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Determining the Defendant's Objections to Pleaded Imputations
Outcome
Imputations (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) struck out with leave to replead; objection to imputation (a) rejected.
Legal Topics
['imputations' 'corruption Imputations' 'pleading Specificity' 'capacity to Convey Imputations']
['defamation'] ['imputations' 'corruption Imputations' 'pleading Specificity' 'capacity to Convey Imputations']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Determining the Defendant's Objections to Pleaded Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pleaded corruption imputations were bad in form for lack of specificity or likely confusion' 'Whether it was necessary to determine objections that the matter complained of was incapable of conveying the challenged imputations' 'Whether the imputation that the plaintiff was a corrupt Mayor was sufficiently specific to be left to the jury']

Ratio Decidendi

Imputation (a), that the plaintiff was a corrupt Mayor, was not bad in form because the article's layout and content were capable of conveying a strong impression of a single kind of corrupt conduct, namely participating in approval of a contentious development application without disclosing prior dealings with the developer. Imputations (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) were bad in form because their language lacked sufficient specificity and was likely to cause confusion as to the defamatory meaning for which the plaintiff contended, so they were struck out with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Imputations (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) struck out with leave to replead; objection to imputation (a) rejected.

Orders

  • ['Imputations (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) be struck out with leave to replead.']