Kriss v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 677

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Kriss v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 677 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 July 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J DECISION : imputation 4(b) struck out

CATCHWORDS : defamation - particularisation of extrinsic facts PARTIES : Maurice Kriss - Plaintiff John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20535/02 COUNSEL : C Evatt - Plaintiff R Glasson - Defendant SOLICITORS : HM Symonds & Britten - Plaintiff Freehills - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

SIMPSON J

Monday 21 July 2003

20535/02 Maurice KRISS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff pleads imputation 4(b) in the following terms: "The plaintiff would as a barrister be likely to engage in sharp and dishonest business practices because he would have an affinity with persons such as Jodee Rich who also engages in sharp and dishonest business practices." 2 In order to particularise the extrinsic facts which would support that imputation the plaintiff proposes to rely on an assertion that Mr Rich had a reputation for sharp and dishonest business practices and that was known to the general public following widespread media reporting of his business affairs. 3 Whether or not that fact can be proved is not a matter for present consideration. If it can, then that would go some way to establishing the capacity of the matter complained of to convey part of the imputation pleaded. But on a reading of the whole of the matter complained of I am not satisfied that, even with the aid of that asserted extrinsic fact, the matter complained of is capable of conveying the opening part of the imputation, that is that the plaintiff would be likely to engage in sharp and dishonest business practices, nor indeed that he would have an affinity with Mr Rich in that respect. 4 Paragraph 8 sets out the qualities said to be required of a person who would legally represent Mr Rich. That does not include anything about sharp or dishonest business practices. Accordingly, I strike out imputation 4(b).