Cavric v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, Cavric, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, arising from articles published by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the articles published by the defendant contained defamatory imputations concerning her character and conduct. The court was tasked with determining whether the alleged imputations were capable of being conveyed to the jury and, if so, in what form.

The court had to decide whether certain imputations were capable of being conveyed to the jury and, if they were, in what form. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether imputations 4(a) and 6(a) were capable of being conveyed. The court also had to determine whether imputations 4(b) and 6(b) were capable of being conveyed and, if not, whether imputations 4(c) and 6(c) could serve as fallbacks. Additionally, the court was required to consider whether imputations 4(d) and 6(d) should be amended and whether imputations 4(e) and 6(e) should be struck out. The court needed to ensure that the imputations were clear, precise, and capable of being understood by the jury.

The court found that imputations 4(a) and 6(a) were capable of being conveyed and would go to the jury. Similarly, imputations 4(b) and 6(b) were found to be capable of being conveyed, but the court allowed for imputations 4(c) and 6(c) to serve as fallbacks if necessary. The court granted the plaintiff leave to replead imputations 4(d) and 6(d) in a more precise form, while imputations 4(e) and 6(e) were struck out as they did not meet the required standard. The court ordered that costs were to be borne by the parties and set a deadline for the plaintiff to file and serve an amended statement of claim. The matter was then stood over for further directions.

The final orders included that imputations 4(a) and 6(a) were to go to the jury, with imputations 4(c) and 6(c) as fallbacks for 4(b) and 6(b) respectively. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend imputations 4(d) and 6(d), and imputations 4(e) and 6(e) were struck out. The plaintiff was required to file and serve an amended statement of claim by a specified date, and the matter was stood over for further directions.