Elliott v West Australian Newspapers Ltd

The case of Elliott v West Australian Newspapers Ltd, heard by Master Newnes in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involved a defamation claim brought by Herbert James Elliott against West Australian Newspapers Ltd. The defendant sought to strike out the defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, arguing that they were not capable of being conveyed by the words complained of or were embarrassing. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's article implied that he had dishonestly and illegally profited from the sale of Fortescue shares by using information concerning contracts between Fortescue and Chinese investors, abused his position as a director and deputy chairman of Fortescue for personal gain, and told a deliberate untruth by stating that he had no knowledge of the existence of the contracts between Fortescue and Chinese investors. The court found that the imputations were arguably capable of being conveyed by the words complained of and were not embarrassing, and therefore dismissed the defendant's application. The court held that the article, read in its context, was suggesting that it was more than mere coincidence that the deputy chairman of Fortescue happened to sell a substantial parcel of shares only days before the company revealed information which caused a drastic reversal in its share price. The imputations of dishonesty, illegality, and abuse of position were sufficiently distinct to not cause any difficulty that would justify striking out the relevant paragraphs. The court also found that the plea in paragraph 4.4 was arguable, in the context, a reasonable reader would understand the reference to the plaintiff's insistence that he had no knowledge at all of the Chinese contracts as suggesting that it was untruthful.