Buckeridge v Walter

Case [2006] WASCA 22

BUCKERIDGE & ANOR -v- WALTER [2006] WASCA 22



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2006] WASCA 22
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:70/200518 JANUARY 2006
Coram:STEYTLER P
PULLIN JA		16/02/06
12Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal refused
B
PDF Version
Parties:LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE
BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 736 005)
JULIAN ALAN WALTER

Catchwords:
Defamation
Pleading defamatory imputation
Whether necessary in this case
Whether pleading should be struck out

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285
Askew v Morris [2004] WASC 43
Askew v Morris [2005] WASCA 59
Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 448
Carpathian Resources v Geological and Corporate Management Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 104
Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542
Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BUCKERIDGE & ANOR -v- WALTER [2006] WASCA 22 CORAM : STEYTLER P
    PULLIN JA
HEARD : 18 JANUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 16 FEBRUARY 2006 FILE NO/S : CACV 70 of 2005 BETWEEN : LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE
    First Applicant

    BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 736 005)
    Second Applicant

    AND

    JULIAN ALAN WALTER
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MASTER NEWNES

Citation : WALTER -v- BUCKERIDGE & ANOR [2005] WASC 112

File No : CIV 2549 of 2003




(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Defamation - Pleading defamatory imputation - Whether necessary in this case - Whether pleading should be struck out




Legislation:

Nil




Result:

Leave to appeal refused




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    First Applicant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms J L Johnson
    Second Applicant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms J L Johnson
    Respondent : Mr R W Richardson


Solicitors:

    First Applicant : Mallesons Stephen Jaques
    Second Applicant : Mallesons Stephen Jaques
    Respondent : Clayton Utz



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

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 1716
Jones v Skelton [1964] NSWR 485
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285




(Page 3)

Case(s) also cited:

Askew v Morris [2004] WASC 43
Askew v Morris [2005] WASCA 59
Brilliant Digital Entertainment Pty Ltd v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 448
Carpathian Resources v Geological and Corporate Management…

Continue reading Buckeridge v Walter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Buckeridge v Walter [2006] WASCA 22
Case
[2006] WASCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Buckeridge v Walter involved a defamation dispute where the plaintiff, Buckeridge, sought to hold Walter accountable for defamatory statements made against him. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The crux of the dispute was whether the plaintiff needed to explicitly state the defamatory imputation in the pleading and whether the pleading itself should be dismissed. The plaintiff had argued that it was unnecessary to detail the defamatory imputation in the pleading and that the pleading should not be struck out. Walter, on the other hand, contended that the pleading needed to clearly articulate the defamatory imputation and that it should be dismissed for failing to do so.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's obligation to specify the defamatory imputation in the pleading was necessary in this particular case. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the pleading should be struck out due to the failure to explicitly state the defamatory imputation. The court considered the relevant legal principles regarding defamation pleadings and the necessity of detailing defamatory imputations. It examined whether the omission of the specific imputation in the pleading was a fatal defect that warranted dismissal or if it could be rectified through amendment.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's obligation to specify the defamatory imputation in the pleading was not absolute and could be waived under certain circumstances. The court held that the pleading did not need to explicitly state the defamatory imputation but could be amended if necessary. The court also concluded that the pleading should not be struck out as it could be rectified by amendment. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the pleading, and the application to strike out the pleading was dismissed. The court's decision affirmed that while the requirement to specify defamatory imputations is important, it is not inflexible and can be adapted to the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court included granting the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading to include the defamatory imputation and dismissing Walter's application to strike out the pleading. The court also refused Walter's application for leave to appeal the decision. This outcome ensured that the plaintiff had the opportunity to rectify the pleading while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.