Legal Research
Cases
Cock v Hughes

Cock v Hughes

Case [2001] WASC 151 15 June 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COCK & ANOR -v- HUGHES & ORS [2001] WASC 151

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 151
Case No:	CIV:1540/2000	Heard:	7 & 30 MAY 2001
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	15/06/01
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to amend claim dismissed with leave to replead
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 Republication of words complained of Alleged republication by listeners/viewers Relevance of republication to claim for aggravated damages
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2001] WASC 24 Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317 Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJQB 231 Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497 Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331 Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956 Cutler v McPhail [1962] 2 QB 292 Drummoyne Municipal Council v ABC (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle & Journal Ltd [1977] 3 All ER 32 Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-669 McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1965] 2 QB 86 Oracle International Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970696; 11 December 1997 Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153 Toomey v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 173 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Vitale & Ors v Bednall & Anor [2000] WASC 207

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COCK & ANOR -v- HUGHES & ORS [2001] WASC 151 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 7 & 30 MAY 2001 DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2001 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 - Republication of words complained of - Alleged republication by listeners/viewers - Relevance of republication to claim for aggravated damages

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to amend claim dismissed with leave to replead

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

Second Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

First Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC & Mr S M Davies

Second Defendant : Mr A C Willinge

Third Defendant : Mr P A Tottle

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

Second Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendant : Mark Andrews & Associates

Second Defendant : Blake Dawson Waldron

Third Defendant : Tottle Christensen

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

Cock & Anor v Hughes & Ors [2001] WASC 24
Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317
Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283
Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJQB 231
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Webb v Bloch (1928)…

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 [2001] WASC 151
Case: [2001] WASC 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cock and Rayney brought a defamation action against Hughes, the ABC and the Nine Network arising from interviews with Hughes conducted by ABC and the Nine Network on 10 May 2000. The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to include further details in support of their claim for aggravated damages. Hughes objected to the proposed amendments on the basis that they were either in improper form or were embarrassing. The court held that the plaintiffs had set up an arguable case that Hughes was responsible for republications of the allegedly defamatory words and that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on such republications in support of their claim for aggravated damages. The court also held that the plaintiffs had set up an arguable case that Hughes had authorised or intended the republications. However, the court held that the plaintiffs' amended pleadings were embarrassing in that they contained inconsistent descriptions of the Nine Network and the plaintiffs were required to submit a fresh minute of proposed claim using a consistent description of the Nine Network and its outlets.

Orders