NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Viney v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1273
HEARING DATE(S) : 11 September 2006
JUDGMENT DATE : 30 November 2006
JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J
DECISION : imputations (1), (2), (3), (4) and ( 9) allowed to stand; imputation (5) does not differ in substance from imputations (7) and (8), plaintiff to elect on which to go to the jury; imputation (6) struck out, plaintiff has liberty to replead; imputation (8) struck out, plaintiff has liberty to replead
CATCHWORDS : defamation - television programme - nine imputations - defendant objections to imputations - separate trial pursuant to UCPR 28.2 - "rolled-up" or "composite" imputations - "rhetorical" imputations - difference of substance
LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970 pt 67, r11(3) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r14.30(3), r28.2
Dawson v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 712 Feros v West Sydney Radio Pty Ltd NSWCA, unreported, 22 June 1982 Grubb v Bristol United Press Ltd [1963] 1 QB 309 Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255 CASES CITED : Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 386 Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Morosi v Mirror Newpapers Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 749 Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd [1985] 1 NSWLR 260 Packer v Channel 7 Sydney Pty Ltd NSWSC, unreported, 12 May 2006
PARTIES : Leanne Viney - Plaintiff TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2006/20116
COUNSEL : RG McHugh - Defendant
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