Cock v Hughes

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.