NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Sydney Refractive Surgery & 3 Ors v Beaumont & 2 Ors [2002] NSWSC 638 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20298/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 15 May 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 July 2002
Sydney Refractive Surgery Centre Pty Ltd - 1st Plaintiff Dr Michael A Lawless - 2nd Plaintiff PARTIES : Dr Paul Beaumont - 1st Defendant HSV Channel 7 Pty Ltd - 2nd Defendant Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd - 3rd Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J
COUNSEL : T Tobin QC with AR Richardson - Plaintiffs K Smark - Defendants SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin - Plaintiffs Mallesons Stephen Jaques - Defendants CATCHWORDS : defamation - application by defendants to file and rely on amended defence - imputations found by jury to have been conveyed - "Polly Peck" defence - particularisation of substantial truth LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 1974 Polly Peck Holdings Plc v Trelford [1986] 1QB 1000 CASES CITED : Chakravarti v Advertising Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37; 193 CLR 519 David Syme and Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24; 1 VR 667 DECISION : Refer paragraph 53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION list
SIMPSON J
19 July 2002
20298/98 SYDNEY REFRACTIVE SURGERY & 3 Ors v Paul BEAUMONT & 2 Ors
JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: In the principal proceedings the plaintiffs (Sydney Refractive Surgery Centre Pty Ltd and Dr Michael Lawless) claim damages against the defendants (Dr Paul Beaumont, HSV Channel 7 Pty Ltd and Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd) for defamatory imputations found by a jury, pursuant to s7A of the Defamation Act 1974, to have been conveyed by the second and third defendants on, respectively, 4 and 5 May 1998, and by the first defendant on an unspecified date shortly before then. Dr Beaumont is sued also as being liable for the republication of the defamatory imputations attributed to him. 2 The present application is an application by all defendants for leave to file and rely on an amended defence, raising significant new issues. The application is opposed by the plaintiffs.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate