Darling v Daniels

Case [2025] FCA 81


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Darling v Daniels [2025] FCA 81

File number: WAD 16 of 2023
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 14 February 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for orders striking out paragraphs of statement of claim alleging Seven West Media was a participant in publication of media reports published under masthead of subsidiary and was vicariously liable for reporter - strike out application allowed - applicant to pay costs
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.13
Cases cited:

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82

Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales [2010] FCAFC 133; (2010) 189 FCR 356

Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 63

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658

Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27; (2021) 273 CLR 346

Mundine v Brown [2010] NSWSC 468

Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2023] FCA 331

Sharif v Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 619

Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 574

Watson v Kriticos (Costs of Summary Judgment Application) [2021] FCA 917

Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331

Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 57
Date of hearing: 5 February 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J MacLaurin SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Kimbri Law
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr RJ Anderson KC with Mr P McCarthy
Solicitor for the Respondents: Steedman Stagg Lawyers

ORDERS

WAD 16 of 2023
BETWEEN:

JACK DARLING

Applicant

AND:

RYAN DANIELS

First Respondent

SEVEN WEST MEDIA (ABN 91 053 480 845)

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 3e to 3h (inclusive), 3i, 3j, 3k, 3n, 3A, 16, 21 and 22 of the further amendment of the further amended statement of claim filed 30 September 2024 be struck out.

2.On or before 10 March 2025, the applicant do file and serve a third further amended statement of claim with changes from the further amendment of the further amended statement of claim shown in markup but excluding markup for previous amendments.

3.Within 14 days of compliance with order 2 the respondents do file and serve any amended defence.

4.The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and in connection with the interlocutory application dated 24 October 2024 in any event.

5.The respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed 10 April 2024 be the respondents' costs in the cause.

6.The proceedings be listed for a further case management hearing upon the request of any party made by email to the associate to the case managing judge.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

  1. Mr Jack Darling…

Continue reading Darling v Daniels

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Darling v Daniels [2025] FCA 81
Case
[2025] FCA 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, including Seven West Media and its subsidiary, applied to the Federal Court for orders to strike out specific paragraphs from the respondents' amended statement of claim. The dispute revolves around allegations that Seven West Media was a participant in the publication of media reports and was vicariously liable for the actions of a reporter. The applicants argued that the claims against them were legally untenable and sought their removal from the proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining whether the paragraphs in question were legally sufficient to be maintained in the statement of claim. The primary issue was whether Seven West Media could be held liable for the actions of its subsidiary and its employees under the law. The court needed to consider whether the claims were so unarguable that they should be dismissed outright.

The court ruled that several paragraphs of the statement of claim were indeed legally untenable and struck them out as per the orders. The court found that the respondents' claims against Seven West Media as a participant in the publication of the media reports and as vicariously liable for the actions of the reporter were not supported by the law. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of these paragraphs from the statement of claim. Additionally, the court directed the applicant to file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date, with the respondents to then file an amended defence within a set period. The costs of the interlocutory applications were also allocated between the parties.

The final orders included the striking out of specific paragraphs from the amended statement of claim, a directive for the applicant to file a further amended statement of claim, and a requirement for the respondents to file an amended defence. The costs of the interlocutory applications were apportioned, with the applicant paying the costs of the most recent application in any event, and the respondents bearing the costs of the earlier application. The proceedings were to be listed for a further case management hearing if requested by any party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 3e to 3h (inclusive), 3i, 3j, 3k, 3n, 3A, 16, 21 and 22 of the further amendment of the further amended statement of claim filed 30 September 2024 be struck out.

2. On or before 10 March 2025, the applicant do file and serve a third further amended statement of claim with changes from the further amendment of the further amended statement of claim shown in markup but excluding markup for previous amendments.

3. Within 14 days of compliance with order 2 the respondents do file and serve any amended defence.

4. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and in connection with the interlocutory application dated 24 October 2024 in any event.

5. The respondents' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application filed 10 April 2024 be the respondents' costs in the cause.

6. The proceedings be listed for a further case management hearing upon the request of any party made by email to the associate to the case managing judge.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.