Archer v Channel Seven Perth Pty Ltd

Archer commenced proceedings against Channel Seven Perth Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, alleging defamation through several imputations in television broadcasts. The broadcaster sought to have certain parts of the statement of claim struck out as being vague, ambiguous, or repetitious. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's pleadings met the necessary specificity for defamation claims, particularly in relation to the word "dishonest" and the imputation of fraudulent transfer of assets. The court also considered whether certain imputations were repetitious and thus redundant.

The court examined whether the word "dishonest" was sufficiently specific or if it was ambiguous in the context of the imputations. Gleeson CJ in Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation provided guidance that the specificity required in pleadings can vary based on practical justice rather than strict philology. The court found that "dishonest" in this context was not ambiguous and thus not problematic. Regarding the imputation of fraudulent transfer, the court held that the specific allegation of transferring all assets to the plaintiff's wife was too unqualified and speculative, warranting its removal from the statement of claim. The court also noted that the imputations in question were not repetitious of each other, as they involved different purposes and contexts.

The court ruled that subparagraph 4(c) of the amended statement of claim should be struck out because it made an unqualified assertion about the fraudulent transfer of assets to the plaintiff's wife, which was considered too speculative and not adequately supported by the evidence. The court did not find the word "dishonest" to be ambiguous or weasel-like, and thus did not strike out those parts of the pleadings. The court ordered that subparagraph 4(c) be removed from the statement of claim, while the rest of the pleadings were to remain as part of the proceedings.