Legal Research
Cases
Cock v Hughes

Cock v Hughes

Case [2002] WASC 108 14 May 2002

Defamation

Fair Comment

Qualified Privilege

Admissibility of Evidence

Specific Performance

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COCK & ANOR -v- HUGHES & ORS [2002] WASC 108

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 108
Case No:	CIV:1540/2000	Heard:	21 MARCH 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	14/05/02
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	A
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 defences Adequacy of fair comment plea Whether substance of comment must be pleaded To what extent facts extraneous to those in or indicated by words complained of can be pleaded Adequacy of qualified privilege plea Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code 1913 (WA), s 355(1), s 355(3), s 355(4) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 9, O 20 r 13A
Case References:	Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 335 Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 18 Bristile Ltd v Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc & Anor [1999] WASC 259 Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc v Bristile Ltd & Anor [2000] WASCA 210 Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2001] WASC 151 Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2001] WASC 24 David Syme Co Ltd v Hore-Lacey (2000) 1 VR 667 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125 International Financing and Investment Pty Ltd v Kent & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980187; 9 April 1998 Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345 Kennett v Farmer [1988] VR 991 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 Loveday v Sun Newspapers Ltd (1938) 59 CLR 503 Moir v Flint & Anor [2002] WASC 48 Pervan v North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 309 Ralph M Lee (WA) Pty Ltd v Fort (1991) 4 WAR 176 Smith's Newspapers Ltd v Becker (1932) 47 CLR 279 Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford (1934) 50 CLR 632 Bainton v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1991) A Tort Rep 81-143 Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351 Hawke v Tamworth Newspaper Co Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 699 Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365 Lloyd v David Syme & Co Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 728 Lyon v Daily Telepgraph Ltd [1943] KB 746 Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v International Finance & Investment Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] WASCA 95 New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Perkins (1998) 45 NSWLR 340 Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90 Seary v Molomby (1999) A Tort Rep 81-536; [1999] NSWSC 981 Taylor v Jecks (1993) WAR 309 Vitale v Bednall [2001] WASC 278

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COCK & ANOR -v-…

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 108
Case: [2002] WASC 108
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cock v Hughes involved an application by the plaintiffs, Robert Enos Cock and Lloyd Patrick Rayney, to strike out certain paragraphs from the statements of defence of the first and third defendants, Robert Hughes and Swan Radio and Television Broadcasters Pty Ltd, respectively. The plaintiffs alleged defamation arising from comments made by Hughes after his acquittal on charges of dangerous driving. The defendants raised pleas of fair comment and qualified privilege in their statements of defence. The Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Hasluck J, considered the adequacy of the fair comment and qualified privilege pleas. The court found that the first defendant's fair comment plea was insufficiently specific and failed to identify the substance of the comment. The court held that the plea must pertain specifically to the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiffs or a permissible variation. The court also found that certain particulars in support of the fair comment plea were extraneous and not related to the matters complained of. The court struck out specific paragraphs of the first defendant's statement of defence but allowed leave to re-plead. The court found that the first defendant's plea of qualified privilege was also insufficiently specific and did not establish the presence of an occasion of privilege. The court held that the particulars provided were not truly directed to the presence of an occasion of privilege and did not establish a reciprocity of duty and interest in the context of a political or governmental issue. The court struck out specific paragraphs of the first defendant's statement of defence but allowed leave to re-plead. The court found that the third defendant's fair comment plea was also insufficiently specific and failed to identify the substance of the comment. The court struck out the relevant paragraph of the third defendant's statement of defence but allowed leave to re-plead. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' application to strike out certain paragraphs of the statements of defence was allowed in part, with leave to re-plead.

Orders