New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Assaf & Anor v Skalkos & Anor [1999] NSWSC 458 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : 18374 of 1993 HEARING DATE(S) : 14 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 17 May 1999 JOSEPH ASSAF (First Plaintiff) ETHNIC COMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED (Second Plaintiff) PARTIES : v THEODORE SKALKOS (First Defendant) FOREIGN LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED (Second Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J K Rees (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : J Gibson (Defendants) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : T. Lazaropoulos Foreign Language Publications Pty Limited (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - capacity DECISION : See paragraph 5 DLJ: 7 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 18374 of 1993 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE MONDAY 17 MAY 1999 JOSEPH ASSAF (First Plaintiff) ETHNIC COMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED (Second Plaintiff) v THEODORE SKALKOS (First Defendant) FOREIGN LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED (Second Defendant) JUDGMENT (Imputations - capacity) 1 Pursuant to my judgment of 30 April 1999 the plaintiff was granted leave to file in Court, on 14 May 1999, a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim. 2 The relevant amended imputations are 7(a) and 7A(a): "he exploits publishers of ethnic community newspaper for his selfish financial purposes, by selling government advertising to them at exorbitant prices". And paragraph 8A(a) "it exploits publishers of ethnic community newspapers for its selfish financial purposes, by selling government advertising to them at exorbitant prices". 3 Pursuant to SCR Pt 31 r 2 the plaintiffs seek orders that each of the matters complained of be held to be capable of giving rise to the imputations pleaded in this Second Further Amended Statement of Claim, that each is capable of being defamatory and thus, each should go to the jury. 4 There was no opposition to my considering these matters on the motion of the plaintiffs. I have done so in the light of the judgment delivered on 30 April 1999. I have concluded that the matters complained of are capable of conveying the imputations pleaded in the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim and that each imputation is capable of being defamatory. 5 The formal orders are: (a) Imputation 7(a), (c), (d), (e); 7A(a), (c), (d), (e); 8(a), (c), (d); 8A(a), (c), (d) will go to the jury. (b) I otherwise confirm Orders 5, 6 and 7 made in my judgment of 30 April 1999 and that the matter be expedited. (c) Liberty to restore to the Defamation List on 7 days notice. (d) Costs of the directions hearing on 14 May 1999 to be costs in the cause. ********** Last Modified: DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.