Cullen v White - [2003] WASC 153

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CULLEN -v- WHITE [2003] WASC 153

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 24 JULY 2003

DELIVERED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1408 of 2002

BETWEEN: TREVOR CULLEN
Plaintiff
AND
WILLIAM HOWARD WHITE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Compensatory damages of $70,000
Exemplary damages of $25,000

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr J M Malcolm
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Jeremy Malcolm
Defendant: No appearance

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

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Cotogno v Lamb (No 3) (1986) 5 NSWLR 559
Todd v Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 334
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons (1966) 117 CLR 118

Case(s) also cited:

Arnett v Roper, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990141; 26 March 1999
Bateman v Symons, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980694; 2 December 1998
Boschetti v Carr [2002] WASC 211
Corse v Robinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970669; 8 December 1997
Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56
John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586
Mickelberg v 6PR Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 270
Rindos v Hardwick, unreported; SCt of WA (Ipp J); Library No 940164; 31 March 1994
The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc v Bristile Ltd [2000] WASCA 210
Todd & Anor v Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 334

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application for an assessment of damages for defamation. The plaintiff issued a generally indorsed writ claiming damages for defamation against the defendant, who is resident in the United States of America. On 5 April 2002, Master Bredmeyer granted leave to the plaintiff to serve notice of the writ on the defendant in the United States. The defendant had 30 days from the date of service of the notice of writ on him in which to file and serve a memorandum of appearance. No appearance was filed and, on 4 November 2002, judgment was entered in default.
The plaintiff then applied for damages to be assessed and on 31 March 2003 leave was granted for the plaintiff to serve notice of the appointment of the assessment of damages on the defendant in the United States. The matter was initially set down for hearing on 16 May 2003, but the defendant complained by letter to the Court that he had not had sufficient notice of the hearing date. It was set down then for 28 May, but that ran into the same problem. On 30 May 2003, the plaintiff's solicitor caused to be sent by post to the defendant in the United States a letter giving notice of the hearing on 24 July 2003, and also particularising the specific publications complained of by the plaintiff and the imputations that the plaintiff alleges were conveyed by those publications. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of the…

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 Cullen v White

Details

AGLC: Cullen v White [2003] WASC 153
Case: [2003] WASC 153
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cullen v White was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Cullen, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, White, who published statements about Cullen that were alleged to be defamatory. The nature of the dispute centred on the extent to which White's publications had damaged Cullen's reputation, necessitating a careful assessment of the impact of the defamatory statements on Cullen's personal and professional life. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to Cullen.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of defamation law in the context of the specific circumstances of this case. The court had to consider whether the statements made by White were indeed defamatory, the extent to which they had damaged Cullen's reputation, and the appropriate measure of damages to compensate Cullen for the harm suffered. Additionally, the court needed to examine the principles governing the assessment of damages in defamation cases, including the relevance of any pre-existing reputation of the plaintiff.

In its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence presented regarding the impact of the defamatory statements on Cullen's reputation. It considered the nature of the publications, the extent of their dissemination, and the reactions of the public. The court emphasised that the assessment of damages in defamation cases is highly fact-specific and requires a detailed examination of the particular circumstances. Ultimately, the court found that the defamatory statements had indeed caused significant harm to Cullen's reputation and awarded damages accordingly. The precise amount of damages was determined based on the evidence of the harm suffered by Cullen, taking into account both personal and professional aspects of his life.

The final orders of the court included an award of damages to Cullen, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate compensation for the harm suffered due to the defamatory publications. The court also noted that the assessment of damages was tailored to the unique facts of this case, highlighting the need for a nuanced and context-specific approach in similar future cases.

Orders