Legal Research
Cases
Boschetti v Carr

Boschetti v Carr

Case [2002] WASC 211 6 September 2002

Defamatory Imputations

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

BOSCHETTI -v- CARR [2002] WASC 211

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 211
Case No:	CIV:2254/1998	Heard:	5-8 AUGUST 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	6/09/02
No of pages:	33	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for plaintiff
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JOHN ALBERT BOSCHETTI RICHARD E CARR KIMBERLEY NEWBOLD
Catchwords:	Defamation Assessment of damages Circulars criticising prominent figures in the crayfishing industry Defendant's role as a critic of the industry Whether aggravated and exemplary damages appropriate Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court, O 20 r 4(1), O 22 r 3 Supreme Court Act, s 32
Case References:	Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225 Arnett v Roper, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990141; 26 March 1999 Australian Securities Commission v MacLeod (1994) 130 ALR 717 Bateman v Symons, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980458; 18 August 1998 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 Cassell & Co v Broome [1972] AC 1027 Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463 Corse v Robinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970669; 8 December 1997 Coyne v Citizen Finance (1991) 172 CLR 211 Henry v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 474 Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131 Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485 McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1965] 2 QB 86 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra [1998] 2 All ER 638 Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1994] QB 670 Rindos v Hardwick, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940164; 31 March 1994 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL (1975) 134 CLR 1 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Todd v Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 334 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58 Whitfeld v De Lauret & Co Ltd (1920) 29 CLR 71 Young v Thomas [1892] 2 Ch 134 Lombank Ltd v Cook [1962] 3 All ER 491 Pollack v Volpato [1973] 1 NSWLR 653 Rigby v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1969] 1 NSWR 729 Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BOSCHETTI -v- CARR [2002] WASC 211 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 5-8 AUGUST 2002 DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2254 of 1998 BETWEEN : JOHN ALBERT BOSCHETTI

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD E CARR

Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 2253 of 1998 BETWEEN : KIMBERLEY NEWBOLD

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD E CARR

Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Assessment of damages - Circulars criticising prominent figures in the crayfishing industry - Defendant's role as a critic of the industry - Whether aggravated and exemplary damages appropriate - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

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 Boschetti v Carr

Details

AGLC: Boschetti v Carr [2002] WASC 211
Case: [2002] WASC 211
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are John Albert Boschetti and Kimberley Newbold, who are both plaintiffs, and Richard Carr, the defendant. The case arose from matters in issue between the parties related to the fishing industry. The plaintiffs seek relief for certain articles published by the defendant which they claim are defamatory. The court was required to decide the legal issues of the meaning of the words complained of, the impact of the imputations, and the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. The court found that the principal imputations and additional imputations were defamatory of the plaintiffs. In awarding damages, the court considered the purpose of damages in defamation cases, the defendant's credibility, and the impact of the publications on the plaintiffs' reputations. The court awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in general damages, $10,000 in exemplary damages, and interest on the total amount from the date of commencement of proceedings to the date of judgment.

Orders