Bond v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

BOND -v- JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2001] WASC 336



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASC 336
Case No:CIV:1650/200022 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:McLURE J14/12/01
8Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application successful in part
B
PDF Version
Parties:ALAN BOND
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 003 357 720)
MARK DRUMMOND

Catchwords:

Defamation
Application to strike out defence
Extension of time to make application
True innuendo
Particulars of justification
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules, O 20 r 19(3), O 59 r 9
Criminal Code, s 371

Case References:

R v Boyce (1956) 40 Cr App R 62
Birmingham v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1999] WASC 19
Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society and Western Australia Inc and Anor [1999] WASC 259
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Foreman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1983) 69 FLR 386
Gardiner v Ray [1999] WASC 140
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Girando v Girando (1997) 18 WAR 450
Goody v Odhams Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333
Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351
Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Leslie v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1971) 125 CLR 332
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Moir v Flint & Anor [2001] WASC 183
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090
Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] 2 WLR 845
Premier Gold & Ors v Ocean Resources NL & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Adams); Library No 940738; 14 December 1994
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933
Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] WASC 90
Robinson v Adshead (No 2) (1995) 12 WAR 577
Slayter v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1
Smith & Anor v Littlemore & Ors (1996) 15 WAR 289
Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co (1973) 131 CLR 69
Vitale & Ors v Bednall & Anor [2000] WASC 207

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : BOND -v- JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2001] WASC 336 CORAM : McLURE J HEARD : 22 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 1650 of 2000 BETWEEN : ALAN BOND
    Plaintiff

    AND

    JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 003 357 720)
    First Defendant

    MARK DRUMMOND
    Second Defendant



Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out defence - Extension of time to make application - True innuendo - Particulars of justification - Turns on own facts




Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bond v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] WASC 336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves Alan Bond, who sued John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Mark Drummond for defamation. Bond sought an extension of time to apply and to strike out certain paragraphs of the defendants' defence. The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard the application on 22 November 2001 and delivered the judgment on 14 December 2001. The court granted the application in part.

The main legal issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to make the application, and if certain paragraphs of the defence were to be struck out. The court considered whether the plaintiff's delay in making the application could be justified and whether the defence contained any untenable or manifestly groundless imputations.

The court found that the plaintiff's delay in making the application could be partially justified, as the merits of the strike-out application were a material consideration. The court also found that paragraph 4 of the defence was arguable and should not be struck out, but paragraph 5 was unclear and potentially prejudicial to the plaintiff. The court granted the plaintiff an extension of time to bring the application and ordered that paragraph 5 of the defence be struck out with the defendant being given leave to replead.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.