Legal Research
Cases
Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Case [2004] WASC 119 4 June 2004

Defamation

Abuse of Process

Defamation

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: ANDERSON -v- NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD & ORS [2004] WASC 119

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 24 MAY 2004

DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 2592 of 2003

BETWEEN: WARREN PERRY ANDERSON
Plaintiff
AND
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828)
First Defendant
SUELLEN HINDE
Second Defendant
ADAM HARVEY
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out imputations pleaded in statement of claim - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application successful in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J C Giles
First Defendant             :     Ms C Galati
Second Defendant         :     Ms C Galati
Third Defendant           :     Ms C Galati

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Solomon Brothers
First Defendant             :     Edwards Wallace
Second Defendant         :     Edwards Wallace
Third Defendant           :     Edwards Wallace

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
John Fairfax & Sons v Cojuangco (1988) 165 CLR 346
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

Case(s) also cited:

Birmingham v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1999] WASC 19
Chan v Trevor [2004] WASC 53
Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2001] WASC 24
Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Wiley v Farrell [2001] WASC 316

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the defendants for orders striking out certain of the defamatory imputations which the plaintiff pleads were conveyed by four articles published by the defendants concerning him.
The plaintiff pleads in par 8 of the statement of claim that the first and third defendants published in the edition of The Sunday Times newspaper of 16 November 2003 the following words of and concerning him:
"Millionaire Anderson and the animal saga
'IT'S a long way to Tipperary,' jokes Kevin Freeman, the wildlife sanctuary manager at the 12,000sq km outback property.
He's right – this week's events related to the remote Northern Territory cattle station are so bizarre they could have occurred on another plant.
One of Australia's richest men had threatened to 'smoke' several thousand exotic animals, he'd been charged with neglect, ordered to face the courts and pulled over at gunpoint by a posse of NT police.
Warren Anderson is famous for his love of animals – and his unorthodox way of displaying that affection.
The multimillionaire property developer once paid Alaskan Inuit people $30,000 for the right to shoot a polar bear, he displayed a stuffed Chihuahua in his home, and he regularly hosted all‑star pig hunting trips on the station.
A 200sq km wildlife sanctuary within massive Tipperary property, which Mr Anderson sold four months ago, is still stocked with one of the country's biggest private zoos – a menagerie of about 2000 animals that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 119
Case: [2004] WASC 119
Decision Date: 4 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Anderson, sought to bring a defamation claim against the defendant, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, the publisher of the 'Sunday Telegraph' newspaper. Anderson claimed that the defendant's publication of a series of articles defamed him. The defendant sought to strike out certain imputations contained in the statement of claim, asserting that they were not reasonably capable of being inferred from the articles in question.

The court was required to determine whether the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim were supported by the articles published by the defendant. Specifically, the court had to consider whether these imputations could be reasonably inferred from the articles, or whether they were entirely speculative or hypothetical. The defendant argued that the imputations were not supported by the articles, and thus should be struck out as they did not form part of the cause of action.

In its judgment, the court held that the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim were not supported by the articles published by the defendant. The court found that the imputations were not reasonably capable of being inferred from the articles, and were therefore not part of the cause of action. The court reasoned that the articles did not explicitly or implicitly convey the imputations as pleaded by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application to strike out the unsupported imputations. The court found that the remaining imputations were sufficient to sustain the defamation claim.

Orders