BYRNES v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1131

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : BYRNES v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD [2003] NSWSC 1131 HEARING DATE(S) : 28 November 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Levine J DECISION : 1. Leave granted to file further amended statement of claim, pleading, in relation to second matter complained of, proposed imputations (a)(i), (b)(i), (c)(i).; 2. Imputation (b) is bad in form and is not to be included in the further amended statement of claim.; 3. Imputation (c) has been abandoned.; 4. Each party to pay his and its own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS : Imputations - form - capacity CASES CITED : Byrnes v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 575 JIM BYRNES (Plaintiff)

PARTIES : v

JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20047 OF 2003 C Evatt (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : T Blackburn SC (Defendant) Monte Gildea (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Freehills (Defendant)

- 1 - Ex tempore: revised [2003] NSWSC 1131 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2003

20047 OF 2003

JIM BYRNES (Plaintiff)

v

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - form – capacity) 1 The plaintiff, in effect, seeks to restructure his action against the defendant by having incorporated into it a further publication in the Australian Financial Review on 27 August 2003. 2 The proceedings initially were concerned only with the publication in The Sydney Morning Herald of 7 October 2002, in respect of which I gave a ruling in [2003] NSWSC 575 on 23 June this year. 3 The proposed second matter complained of bears the headline "Galleries duck Lucky Jim's prize" and is made up of approximately 14 paragraphs of text (appended hereto) and an accompanying cartoon with this caption: "Jim Byrnes… I don't know much about art but I know what I like…Which is?…Cars". 4 The plaintiff now seeks to rely upon the following imputations. (a) The plaintiff is a twice bankrupt property developer. If that cannot be sustained then, (a)(i) The plaintiff is a twice bankrupt.