District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Random House Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 31 Hearing dates: 24 March 2015 Date of orders: 24 March 2015 Decision date: 24 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Imputation 3(a), 3(f) and 3(o) will go to the jury.
(2) Imputation 3(b) will go to the jury.
(3) Note imputation 3(c) is withdrawn; strike out proposed imputation 3(c) with leave to replead.
(4) Strike out from imputation 3(d) the words “the major organised crime figure of his day” but otherwise this imputation will go to the jury.
(5) Note imputation 3(e) is withdrawn and grant leave to the plaintiff to replead this imputation as proposed, but deleting the words “the major organised crime figure of his day”; this amended imputation will go to the jury.
(6) Noting the plaintiff withdraws the proposed repleading, imputation 3(g) will go to the jury.
(7) Note in relation to imputation 3(h), the proposed second form of imputation 3(e), namely that “The plaintiff, Brian and Garry Boyd and Abe Saffron were involved in illegal casinos” does not differ in substance from imputation 3(h), and imputation 3(h) is the imputation the plaintiff selects to go to the jury.
(8) Strike out imputation 3(i) with leave to replead so that this imputation will differ in substance from imputation 3(d).
(9) Note that imputation 3(j) is withdrawn and grant the plaintiff leave to replead.
(10) Imputation 3(k), subject to deleting the word “of”, will go to the jury.
(11) Imputation 3(l) is struck out with leave to replead imputations to the effect that the plaintiff was reasonably suspected by Justice Don Stewart, the Royal Commissioner who headed the Royal Commission into The Age tapes, of involvement in: (a) forging documents; (b) conspiracy; and (c) misleading officers of the Department of Immigration (each to be a separate imputation).
(12) Imputation 3(m) is withdrawn and struck out on the basis of capacity.
(13) Imputation 3(n) is withdrawn and struck out.
(14) Grant leave to the plaintiff to plead imputation 3(p): “The plaintiff was knowingly involved in a corrupt Sydney network of lawyers, politicians, crime figures, judges and racing identities in which, for a price, anything could be bought”; this imputation will go to the jury.
(15) Costs of this application to be the defendant’s costs in the cause.
(16) Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim by Friday 27 March 2015.
(17) Defendant’s objections by Thursday 9 April 2015.
(18) Matter stood over for further directions or argument to Thursday 16 April 2015 at 2:00pm.Catchwords: TORT – defamation – imputations – form and capacity Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 60
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 26
Defamation Act 2013 (UK)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.30Cases Cited: Ainsworth v Burden [2000] NSWSC 105
Alex v Gridneff [2013] NSWSC 2025
Bateman v Fairfax Media (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1380
C v L and Ors [2005] SASC 315
Christiansen v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd…
Continue reading Ryan v Random House Australia Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ryan v Random House Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 31
- Case
- [2015] NSWDC 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide which of the numerous defamatory imputations outlined in the plaintiff's amended statement of claim should be put to the jury for determination. This involved examining each imputation for its defamatory nature, form, and capacity to injure Mr Ryan's reputation. The court also had to determine if any of the imputations were repetitive or if they could be amended to avoid issues of redundancy or excessive capacity.
The court ruled on each imputation individually. Some imputations were deemed suitable for the jury to consider, while others were either withdrawn by the plaintiff or struck out by the court due to redundancy or excessive capacity. For instance, certain imputations were struck out or modified to avoid repetition or to ensure they differed substantially from others. Additionally, the court granted leave to the plaintiff to replead certain imputations that were initially withdrawn, subject to specific conditions. The court's decision detailed the specific alterations to each imputation and outlined the procedural steps for the next stages of the trial.
The final orders included directives for the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim by a specified date and for the defendant to file objections to these amendments. The matter was then stood over for further directions or argument on a set date, indicating the next steps in the litigation process.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Imputation 3(a), 3(f) and 3(o) will go to the jury.
(2) Imputation 3(b) will go to the jury.
(3) Note imputation 3(c) is withdrawn; strike out proposed imputation 3(c) with leave to replead.
(4) Strike out from imputation 3(d) the words “the major organised crime figure of his day” but otherwise this imputation will go to the jury.
(5) Note imputation 3(e) is withdrawn and grant leave to the plaintiff to replead this imputation as proposed, but deleting the words “the major organised crime figure of his day”; this amended imputation will go to the jury.
(6) Noting the plaintiff withdraws the proposed repleading, imputation 3(g) will go to the jury.
(7) Note in relation to imputation 3(h), the proposed second form of imputation 3(e), namely that “The plaintiff, Brian and Garry Boyd and Abe Saffron were involved in illegal casinos” does not differ in substance from imputation 3(h), and imputation 3(h) is the imputation the plaintiff selects to go to the jury.
(8) Strike out imputation 3(i) with leave to replead so that this imputation will differ in substance from imputation 3(d).
(9) Note that imputation 3(j) is withdrawn and grant the plaintiff leave to replead.
(10) Imputation 3(k), subject to deleting the word “of”, will go to the jury.
(11) Imputation 3(l) is struck out with leave to replead imputations to the effect that the plaintiff was reasonably suspected by Justice Don Stewart, the Royal Commissioner who headed the Royal Commission into The Age tapes, of involvement in: (a) forging documents; (b) conspiracy; and (c) misleading officers of the Department of Immigration (each to be a separate imputation).
(12) Imputation 3(m) is withdrawn and struck out on the basis of capacity.
(13) Imputation 3(n) is withdrawn and struck out.
(14) Grant leave to the plaintiff to plead imputation 3(p): “The plaintiff was knowingly involved in a corrupt Sydney network of lawyers, politicians, crime figures, judges and racing identities in which, for a price, anything could be bought”; this imputation will go to the jury.
(15) Costs of this application to be the defendant’s costs in the cause.
(16) Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim by Friday 27 March 2015.
(17) Defendant’s objections by Thursday 9 April 2015.
(18) Matter stood over for further directions or argument to Thursday 16 April 2015 at 2:00pm.
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.