Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J 9. Assessing capacity to defame 30 The question of whether words or images complained of are capable of conveying a pleaded defamatory imputation is a question of law22 which permits of only one correct answer. It is, however, a question about which reasonable minds may sometimes differ, and, consequently, it is only ever with great caution that a defamation pleading should be disallowed as incapable of bearing a defamatory imputation. The potential for difference about the capacity of matters to convey different meanings is an equally strong reason for declining to set aside a proceeding on the basis that an impugned publication is incapable of bearing the defamatory imputation alleged23. And it is to be remembered that on an application for summary dismissal such as this, the plaintiff's case as to the capacity of the publications to defame is to be taken at its highest24. 31 The test for whether a published matter is capable of being defamatory is what ordinary reasonable people would understand by the matter complained of25. In making that assessment, it is necessary to bear in mind that ordinary men and women have different temperaments and outlooks, degrees of education and life experience. As Lord Reid observed in Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd26, "[s]ome are unusually suspicious and some are unusually naive". So also are some unusually well educated and sophisticated while others are deprived of the 22 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 at 1370; [1963] 3 All ER 952 at 958; Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 at 1719 [9] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Heydon JJ; 221 ALR 186 at 189-190; [2005] HCA 52. 23 Favell (2005) 79 ALJR 1716 at 1719 [6] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Heydon JJ; 221 ALR 186 at 189; Corby v Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd (2014) Aust Torts Reports ¶82-184 at 67,716-67,717 [134]-[137] per McColl JA (Bathurst CJ and Gleeson JA agreeing at 67,697 [1], 67,725 [191]). 24 See for example D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1 at 75 [230] per Kirby J; [2005] HCA 12; Pi v Pierce [2015] NSWCA 118 at [24] per Ward JA (Gleeson JA agreeing at [31]); cf Abou-Lokmeh v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 228 at [28] per McColl JA in relation to contextual imputations. 25 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 at 1370; [1963] 3 All ER 952 at 958; Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460 at 466-467 [4]-[6] per French CJ, Gummow, Kiefel and Bell JJ; [2009] HCA 16. 26 [1964] AC 234 at 259 (Lord Jenkins agreeing at 262).