Legal Research
Cases
Cock v Hughes

Cock v Hughes

Case [2002] WASC 263 11 November 2002

Defamatory Imputations

Fair Comment

Qualified Privilege

Lange Defence

Admissibility of Evidence

Rebuttal

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COCK & ANOR -v- HUGHES & ORS [2002] WASC 263

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 263
Case No:	CIV:1540/2000	Heard:	30 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	MCLURE J	Delivered:	11/11/02
No of pages:	24	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ROBERT ENOS COCK LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY ROBERT HUGHES AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION SWAN RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTERS PTY LTD (ACN 008 689 745)
Catchwords:	Defamation Application to strike out defence Adequacy of fair comment plea Whether knowledge of facts justifying comment must be pleaded Whether comment a permissible variation of plaintiffs' imputations Whether comment capable of arising Whether a reply to an attack in Crown case in criminal proceedings protected by qualified privilege Whether an arguable Lange defence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] VSC 18; (2002) 3 VR 639 Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 335; (2001) 3 VR 619 Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2002] WASC 108 David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24; (2000) 1 VR 667 Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 Marks v Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards, Sawmills & Woodworkers Union (1995) 14 WAR 360 Moir v Flint & Anor [2002] WASC 48 Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219 Pervan v North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 309 Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 Popovic v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd [2002] VSC 174 Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343 Turner v Hughes [2000] WASCA 276 Vitale & Ors v Bednall & Anor [2001] WASC 278 Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd [1997] QB 650 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc & Anor [1999] WASC 259 Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365 Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345 Loveday v Sun Newspapers Ltd (1938) 59 CLR 503 McIlkenny v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force [1980] QB 283 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v International Financing & Investment Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 95 The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc v Bristile Ltd & Anor [2000] WASCA 210 Turner v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 449

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COCK & ANOR -v- HUGHES & ORS [2002] WASC 263 CORAM : McLURE J HEARD : 30 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 11 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1540 of 2000 BETWEEN : ROBERT ENOS COCK

First Plaintiff

LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY

Second Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT HUGHES

First Defendant

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Second Defendant

SWAN RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTERS PTY LTD (ACN 008 689 745)

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out defence - Adequacy…

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 Cock v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Cock v Hughes [2002] WASC 263
Case: [2002] WASC 263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cock and Rayney commenced defamation proceedings against Hughes, the ABC, and Swan Radio. The plaintiffs' case is that Hughes, in a radio interview, made defamatory comments about the plaintiffs, which were broadcast by the ABC and Swan Radio. The first defendant, Hughes, has pleaded fair comment, qualified privilege, and the Lange defence. The plaintiffs have applied to strike out specified paragraphs of Hughes' defence. The court found that the fair comment plea was arguable and the particulars provided were sufficient. The qualified privilege plea was also found to be arguable, as the response was made to an attack made in the course of the trial. The Lange defence was found to be arguable as well, as it was not necessary for Hughes to seek and publish a response from the plaintiffs. The application to strike out the defence was dismissed.

Orders