New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Waters v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 679 HEARING DATE(S) : 22 July 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 22 July 2003 JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J DECISION : allow imputations 5(b) and (a) as alternatives CATCHWORDS : defamation PARTIES : Kevin Waters - Plaintiff John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20432/02 COUNSEL : S Wheelhouse - Plaintiff T Blackburn - Defendant SOLICITORS : Blessington Judd - Plaintiff Freehills - Defendant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST SIMPSON J Tuesday 22 July 2003 20432/02 Kevin WATERS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: Following my rulings yesterday in relation to imputations, counsel for the plaintiff has sought to amend imputation 5(a) so that it reads: "The plaintiff, when a tow truck operator, employed the violent criminal Ian Clissold in the tow truck industry as a licensed tow truck driver." 2 There is no objection to the substitution of the imputation so drafted. However, as a consequence, counsel for the defendant has argued that imputation 5(a) as amended does not differ in substance from imputation 5(b). 3 The position is virtually identical to the argument I dealt with yesterday in relation to imputations 6(b) and(d). In each case there is one imputation asserting corruption, that corruption being constituted by the employment of Mr Clissold in the tow truck industry. The other imputation is simply an imputation that the plaintiff employed Mr Clissold. 4 As I said yesterday, in my opinion the imputation asserting corruption is greater than and encompasses the imputation asserting employment, but is not otherwise different. Thus, if the jury were to find the corruption imputation conveyed nothing would be added by the employment imputation and, as is the case with the imputations numbered 6(b) and (d), I will allow imputations 5(b) and (a) as alternatives. ********** Last Modified: 07/29/2003 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.