Waters v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

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."

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).

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.

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.