MILLANE & ORS v NATIONWIDE NEWS [2002] NSWSC 805

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : MILLANE & ORS v NATIONWIDE NEWS [2002] NSWSC 805 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20213 OF 2002 HEARING DATE(S) : 2 September 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 September 2002

JOHN MILLANE (First Plaintiff)

ANDREW PARTRIDGE (Second Plaintiff)

MATTHEW PARTRIDGE (Third Plaintiff) PARTIES : RELOCORP PTY LTD (t/a COUSINS & CO) (Fourth Plaintiff)

v

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (t/a CUMBERLAND NEWSPAPER GROUP) (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

C Evatt (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : T Hale SC/A Henskens (Defendant)

Peter R Murphy & Co (Plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : Cropper Parkhill (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - form DECISION : See paragraph 11

- 4 - DLJT: 1 (Ex Tempore- Revised) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2002

20213 OF 2002 JOHN MILLANE (First Plaintiff)

ANDREW PARTRIDGE (Second Plaintiff)

MATTHEW PARTRIDGE (Third Plaintiff)

RELOCORP PTY LTD (t/a COUSINS & CO) (Fourth Plaintiff)

v

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (t/a CUMBERLAND NEWSPAPER GROUP) (Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - form) 1 The plaintiffs have instituted proceedings in respect of two publications in the Mosman Daily on 2 and 9 May this year. The matters complained of concern a dispute that has arisen in relation to a residence in Avenue Road, above a real estate agency business conducted by the fourth plaintiff, the corporation. The first, second and third plaintiffs are described as estate agents and directors and shareholders of the fourth plaintiff which trades under the name Cousins & Co. That business name is clearly displayed in the photograph in the first matter complained of. 2 Imputations 5(a) to (e)(ii) and cognate imputations in respect of the other personal plaintiffs are challenged on the basis that they are improper in form by containing the word "through and by Cousins & Co". For example: 5(a) The first Plaintiff, through and by Cousins & Co caused a Mosman Couple with a six week old daughter to be prisoners in their own home. 3 The use of those words it is said, and I agree, give rise to uncertainty and ambiguity insofar as there could be a real quesiton as between the first plaintiff and "Cousins & Co" as to that which the first plaintiff did via, through or vis-à-vis "Cousins & Co" which caused the Mosman couple to be prisoners in their own home. A wide range of speculation would be available which could detach the bulk of the imputation from the requirement of asserting an act or condition in the person complained of, namely the first plaintiff. 4 By way of further example, in imputation (e): 5(e) The first Plaintiff through and by Cousins & Co deliberately made incorrect allegations about the access of a Mosman Couple with a six week old daughter to their flat.