Sleeman v Nationwide News
[2002] NSWSC 1100
•18 November 2002
CITATION: SLEEMAN v NATIONWIDE NEWS [2002] NSWSC 1100 revised - 20/11/2002 FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20256 OF 2000 HEARING DATE(S): 18 November 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 18 November 2002 PARTIES :
RICHARD SLEEMAN
(Plaintiff)v
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
COUNSEL : C Evatt/J Henness
T Blackburn/D Sibtain
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)SOLICITORS: Peter R Murphy & Co
Blake Dawson Waldron
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)CATCHWORDS: On application by plaintiff to rely on two further imputations - post 7A trial LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 DECISION: See paragraph 7
DLJT:1
[2002] NSWSC 1100
Ex tempore revised
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2002
20256 OF 2000
RICHARD SLEEMAN
(Plaintiff)
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTDv
(Defendant)
1 On 7 May 2001 a jury, empanelled for the purposes of s7A of the Defamation Act 1974 determined that, of three imputations pleaded by the plaintiff, two only were carried by the article sued on and were found to be defamatory. The third imputation found by the jury not to have been carried technically remains as part of the pleading by the plaintiff of his original causes of action.
2 What has now occurred is curious. The plaintiff seeks to plead two additional causes of action constituted by, as I presently understand it, the contextual imputations pleaded by the defendant after the conclusion of the s7A trial.
3 I am informed that the defendant consented to the filing of a second further amended statement of claim after the s7A trial, which included, as its fourth imputation, the defendant's first contextual imputation. I do not quite understand how it came about that the defendant consented to a pleading which, in my view, contains a cause of action in this case upon which the plaintiff is not entitled to rely. I do not see the consent of the defendant overcoming the problem confronted by the plaintiff that the relevant tribunal has adjudicated upon, in accordance with its exclusive function, the discrete matters left to it in May of last year.
4 The same observation can be made with respect to what the plaintiff now seeks to do, which is to plead an additional imputation as a cause of action by way of pleading back the second contextual imputation pleaded in the further amended defence filed in Court today. The same difficulty, as I have said, confronts the plaintiff in that regard as attended the first contextual imputation.
5 There may or may not be, though it is not necessarily presently to decide, a question under s9(3) of the Defamation Act.
6 It seems to me that the structure of the case hitherto compels the trial only of those issues raised by the defence, and other issues as to damages, in respect of the causes of action originally pleaded, two of which only have been found by the jury.
7 Accordingly, I decline to permit the plaintiff to amend by adding the two additional imputations.
2
0
1