Allen v Lloyd-Jones - [2009] NSWDC 168

CITATION: Allen v Lloyd-Jones [2009] NSWDC 168

HEARING DATE(S): 3 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 July 2009

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 3 July 2009

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ

DECISION: (1) Imputations (f) and (h) struck out.
(2) Defendant's application to strike out imputations otherwise dismissed.
(3) Defendant pay plaintiff's costs.
(4) Amended Statement of Claim filed and served in 7 days.
(5) Matter stood over for further directions to Friday 17 July 2009 at 9:00am.

CATCHWORDS: TORT – defamation – imputations – form and capacity

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28 and 28.2

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Buckley v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 102
Cavasinni v Camenzuli [2009] NSWDC 159
Edward Hayson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 763
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Hunt J, 8 October 1982, unreported)
James v Faddoul [2008] NSWSC 176
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock [2007] NSWCA 364
Malcolm v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-915
Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273

PARTIES: Plaintiff: Anthony James Allen
Defendant: Laurel Lloyd-Jones

FILE NUMBER(S): 1549 of 2009

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou
Defendant: Mr R Rasmussen

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Andrew Warren & Associates
Defendant: Levitt Robinson Solicitors

Judgment

[1] By way of Statement of Claim filed on 14 April 2009, the plaintiff brings proceedings for defamation concerning an email (“the matter complained of”) sent to various persons, including Sarah Curnow, the Four Corners and “News Desk” program, as well as to other unknown recipients. The plaintiff further claims that the matter complained of was subsequently republished by the “News Desk” to two others, namely Daniel Lewis and Joel Gibson. The matter complained of is set out in a schedule to this judgment.

[2] The application is for the court to determine these issues as separate questions of law pursuant to r 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and to strike out the imputations pursuant to r 14.28(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The relevant Act is the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

[3] The plaintiff pleads the following imputations arise from the matter complained of:

(a) The plaintiff, the Mayor of Bega Valley Shire, conducted himself inappropriately as Mayor in that he bullied a woman.
(b) The plaintiff, the Mayor of Bega Valley Shire, conducted himself inappropriately as Mayor in that he attended a woman’s home against her express wishes.
(c) The plaintiff intimidated a woman by acting in a bullying and overpowering manner over the phone.
(d) The plaintiff was aggressive towards a woman in her home.
(e) The plaintiff intimidated a woman for the purposes of forcing her to rescind a complaint she had made about him.
(f) The plaintiff blackmailed a woman by threatening legal action against her if she reported a complaint about…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allen v Lloyd-Jones

Details

AGLC: Allen v Lloyd-Jones [2009] NSWDC 168
Case: [2009] NSWDC 168
Decision Date: 3 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Allen v Lloyd-Jones involved a dispute concerning alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, Lloyd-Jones, against the plaintiff, Allen. The plaintiff sought to hold Lloyd-Jones accountable for defamatory imputations made in a publication, which Allen claimed had damaged his reputation and caused distress. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the defamation claim and the specific imputations in question.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court revolved around the nature and scope of the defamatory imputations as outlined in Allen's Statement of Claim. The court needed to assess whether certain specified imputations were indeed defamatory and whether they were properly pleaded. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any of the imputations should be struck out due to being vague or otherwise legally untenable. The defendant argued that some of the imputations were unclear and should not be considered in the proceedings.

In its judgment, the court determined that two specific imputations were either vague or did not adequately convey a defamatory meaning and thus were struck out. The court, however, dismissed the defendant's broader application to strike out the remaining imputations, finding them to be sufficiently clear and actionable. The court also addressed the defendant's application for costs, ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs from the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff was granted permission to file and serve an amended Statement of Claim within seven days. The matter was then stood over for further directions to allow for the incorporation of these changes and to set a new date for continued proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Imputations (f) and (h) struck out. (2) Defendant's application to strike out imputations otherwise dismissed. (3) Defendant pay plaintiff's costs. (4) Amended Statement of Claim filed and served in 7 days. (5) Matter stood over for further directions to Friday 17 July 2009 at 9:00am.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Allen v Lloyd-Jones [2009] NSWDC 168
HEARING DATE(S):	3 July 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	3 July 2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	3 July 2009
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Gibson DCJ
DECISION:	(1) Imputations (f) and (h) struck out. (2) Defendant's application to strike out imputations otherwise dismissed. (3) Defendant pay plaintiff's costs. (4) Amended Statement of Claim filed and served in 7 days. (5) Matter stood over for further directions to Friday 17 July 2009 at 9:00am.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT – defamation – imputations – form and capacity
LEGISLATION CITED:	Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28 and 28.2
CASES CITED:	Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Buckley v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] NSWDC 102 Cavasinni v Camenzuli [2009] NSWDC 159 Edward Hayson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 763 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of NSW, Hunt J, 8 October 1982, unreported) James v Faddoul [2008] NSWSC 176 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock [2007] NSWCA 364 Malcolm v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-915 Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273
PARTIES:	Plaintiff: Anthony James Allen Defendant: Laurel Lloyd-Jones
FILE NUMBER(S):	1549 of 2009
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: Ms S Chrysanthou Defendant: Mr R Rasmussen
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: Andrew Warren & Associates Defendant: Levitt Robinson Solicitors