Stuart Rendell v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd

The case of Stuart Rendell v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd [2003] ACTSC 100 involved a defamation claim brought by Stuart Rendell against the Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd and others. The dispute arose from two articles published in The Canberra Times alleging that Rendell had imported prohibited drugs and was therefore liable to be suspended from sport. The articles also contained other imputations including that Rendell was a drug cheat and that he had falsely claimed his wife gave certain of his personal documents to the Australian Institute of Sport. The defendant sought to have certain paragraphs of the statement of claim struck out on various grounds including that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The key legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the articles were capable of conveying the defamatory imputations pleaded by Rendell. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the articles implied that Rendell was guilty of importing prohibited drugs, guilty of trafficking prohibited drugs, a drug cheat, and liable to be suspended from sport. The court also had to consider whether the imputations were capable of being conveyed by the articles despite the presence of denials by Rendell.

The court concluded that the articles were capable of conveying the defamatory imputations pleaded. While the articles contained denials by Rendell, the court found that the denials did not necessarily neutralise the defamatory imputations as they did not amount to a clear statement that the acts alleged were not criminal offences. The court also found that the imputation that Rendell was a drug cheat was clearly conveyed by a combination of statements in the articles. However, the court struck out the imputation that Rendell was liable to be suspended from sport as it did not add anything to the earlier imputations.

The court granted the defendant leave to amend the notice of motion to seek a binding determination of the legal issues. The court ordered that certain paragraphs of the statement of claim be struck out, the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs, and the action be referred to the Registrar to prepare a timetable if the parties could not agree on one.