Legal Research
Cases
Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4]

Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4]

Case [2020] WASC 31 7 February 2020

Defamation

Triviality

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Abuse of Process

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   ARMSTRONG -v- MCINTOSH [No 4] [2020] WASC 31
CORAM:   LE MIERE J
HEARD:   11 ‑ 15, 18 & 20 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   7 FEBRUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1120 of 2018
BETWEEN:   PAUL ANDREW ARMSTRONG
Plaintiff
AND
GREGORY MCINTOSH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Publication made by way of text messages - Identification - Meaning - Single Meaning Rule - Defamatory meaning - Threshold of seriousness - The Thornton principle

Defences - Triviality - Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 33 - Turns on own facts

Abuse of process - Inherent common law power - Whether proceedings were commenced for an improper purpose - Turns on own facts

Damages - Damages where extent of publication narrow - Aggravated damages - Conduct which is improper, unjustifiable or lacks bona fides - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Defendant	:	Mr N D C Dillon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Carmel Galati
Defendant	:	Hager Grubb & Partners Lawyers

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

Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Armstrong v McIntosh [2018] WASC 364
Armstrong v McIntosh [No 2] [2019] WASC 379
Barrow v Bolt [2015] VSCA 107
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80‑691
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Crawford Adjusters Ltd v Sagicor Insurance Ltd [2014] AC 366
David Syme v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162
Dowling v Colonial Mutual Assurance Society (1915) 20 CLR 509
Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (2006) 66 NSWLR 675
Grainger v Hill (1838) 132 ER 769
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946
Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] All ER (D) 285
Jones v Sutton (2004) 61 NSWLR 614
King v Henderson [1898] AC 720
La Gleaner Co Ltd v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] 4 All ER 485
Lesses v Maras (2017) 128 SASR 292
Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Warton [2002] NSWCA 377
Perkins v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (Unreported, NSWSC, BC 9708048, 15 August 1997)
PNJ v The Queen (2009) 252 ALR 612
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524
Reader's Digest Services Proprietary Limited v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2003) 216 CLR 327
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Rufus v Elliott [2015] All ER (D) 244
Sim v Stretch…

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 Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4] [2020] WASC 31
Case: [2020] WASC 31
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Armstrong v McIntosh, the plaintiff, Mr Armstrong, brought an action against the defendant, Ms McIntosh, for defamation arising from text messages sent by Ms McIntosh to a small group of people. The messages contained allegations that Mr Armstrong had engaged in sexual misconduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issues were whether the text messages were defamatory, the threshold of seriousness, available defences, and the appropriate quantum of damages.

The court considered the single meaning rule and whether the text messages conveyed a defamatory meaning. It was established that the messages were understood by the recipients to imply that Mr Armstrong had engaged in sexual misconduct. The court then assessed the seriousness of the allegations and concluded that the threshold of seriousness was met. Regarding defences, the court found that triviality was not applicable as the messages had a significant impact on Mr Armstrong's reputation. The court also dismissed the argument of abuse of process, finding that the proceedings were not commenced for an improper purpose. In terms of damages, the court awarded compensation for the extent of the publication and determined that aggravated damages were appropriate due to Ms McIntosh's improper, unjustifiable, and lacking bona fides conduct.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of Mr Armstrong, awarding damages for defamation and aggravated damages. The specific amounts were determined to be appropriate given the facts of the case.

Orders