20 Nov 2007
B M SALMON V L A MCKINNON CA CA251/06
- Citation
- openlaw-2bcc4372_2ef5_4b56_b6b4_b1c7041ebd3a.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Although the email was capable of being published of and concerning the appellant by innuendo given the franchise structure, a reasonable informed reader would not construe it as alleging dishonest misuse of franchisees' funds or that the appellant purchased the car for personal use; it amounted to criticism of a marketing decision and was not defamatory in the pleaded senses; a declaration under s24 was unnecessary and, given the oppressive prosecution of the claim, costs against the appellant were appropriate.