Gibson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 232

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Gibson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 232

HEARING DATE(S) : Wednesday 22 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 6 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J

DECISION : Plaintiff to have leave to amend imputations (c) and (d), if so advised.

CATCHWORDS : Defamation - separate trial of questions arising in statement of claim - whether matter complained of has capacity to convey imputations pleaded - whether imputations differ in substance - imputations to be pleaded as alternatives but not conjointly

LEGISLATION CITED : Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r14.30 (3), r28.2

CASES CITED : Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255 Jarratt v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 547

PARTIES : Paul Gibson - Plaintiff Nationwide News Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20406/05

COUNSEL : B McClintock SC - Plaintiff A Leopold / S Chrysanthou - Defendant

SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin Lawyers - Plaintiff Blake Dawson Waldron - Defendant

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

SIMPSON J

Thursday 6 April 2006

20406/05 Paul Gibson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: By statement of claim filed on 27 February 2006 the plaintiff claims damages in defamation as a consequence of the publication by the defendant in a daily newspaper (The Daily Telegraph) on 5 November 2005 of five imputations he claims defamed him. 2 The defendant has filed a notice of objection, claiming certain defects in the statement of claim. Pursuant to UCPR r28.2 the parties seek a separate trial of the questions that arise. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to take that course. I so order. The questions to be separately tried concern the imputations pleaded. For these purposes it is convenient to accept as accurate the facts pleaded in the statement of claim. 3 The plaintiff is a member of the NSW Parliament. The matter complained of was contained in three separate articles in The Daily Telegraph. The principal article began on the front page, under a heading, in very large type: "RORT BACK AND SIDES" 4 This was accompanied by an equally large photograph of the plaintiff, apparently in a hairdressing salon or barber shop, having his hair cut. Under the photograph was a caption reading: "Trim ... State MP Paul Gibson gets a haircut while in London on a road safety study tour. 5 A smaller-type headline, above the large one, read: "EXCLUSIVE: State MPs busted in Britain on $55,000 taxpayer-funded study tour" 6 The article commenced: "This is state MP Paul Gibson, hard at it in a London hair salon on a parliamentary study tour which has taken him and fellow MP Daryl Maguire to the UK, Russia and South Africa." 7 On the second page was yet another headline, reading: "Caught out on a $55,000 tour" 8 Above this were four photographs: one showed the plaintiff carrying some shirts on a hanger; it was captioned: " o WASHING ... Mr Gibson picked up his dry cleaning before visiting a pub."