FINDLAY -v- GRIMMER [No 2] [2013] WASC 247
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 247 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1128/2013 | 29 APRIL & 3 MAY 2013 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 5/07/13 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Imputations struck out Leave to replead | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LAWRENCE JAMES HEAN FINDLAY BRIAN GRIMMER |
Catchwords: | Defamation Practice and procedure Strike out Imputations False innuendos Identification |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O26 r 8 |
Case References: | Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 Hambly v Joseph Charles Learmonth Duffy Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 142 Harris v Warre (1879) 2 CPD 125 Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Mirror Newspapers v Monte [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL (1975) 134 CLR 1 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 The Australian Medical Association (WA) Inc v McEvoy [2012] WASC 50 Tournier v National Provincial & Union Bank of England [1923] All ER Rep 550; [1924] 1 KB 461 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- (Consolidated by order dated 1 March 2013)
- Plaintiff
AND
BRIAN GRIMMER
Defendant
- Plaintiff
AND
BRIAN GRIMMER
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Practice and procedure - Strike out - Imputations - False innuendos - Identification
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O26 r 8
Result:
Imputations struck out
Leave to replead
Category: B
Representation:
CIV 1128 of 2013
(Consolidated by order dated 1 March 2013)
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett
Defendant : Mr M C Goldblatt
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Bennett & Co
Defendant : Lavan Legal
CIV 1314 of 2013
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett
Defendant : Mr M C Goldblatt
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Bennett & Co
Defendant : Lavan Legal
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263
Hambly v Joseph Charles Learmonth Duffy Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 142
Harris v Warre (1879) 2 CPD 125
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Monte v Mirror Newspapers [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL [1975] HCA 6; (1975) 134 CLR 1
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
The Australian Medical Association (WA) Inc v McEvoy [2012] WASC 50
Tournier v National Provincial & Union Bank of England [1923] All ER Rep 550; [1924] 1 KB 461
(Page 4)
1 KENNETH MARTIN J: The defendant raised a series of objections against the plaintiff's statement of…
Continue reading Findlay v Grimmer [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- FINDLAY -v- GRIMMER [No 2] [2013] WASC 247
- Case
- [2013] WASC 247
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Findlay v Grimmer [No 2] before the Federal Court of Australia involved a dispute concerning defamatory statements made by the respondent, Grimmer, about the applicant, Findlay. The defamatory imputations in question included allegations of professional misconduct and criminal activities, which Grimmer made against Findlay in various publications and communications. The case revolved around whether these imputations were indeed defamatory and whether they could be sustained in a defamation action.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the imputations were capable of bearing defamatory meanings and whether the court should strike them out under the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules. A secondary issue was the identification of the persons to whom the defamatory imputations were directed. The court needed to determine if the imputations were sufficiently specific to allow for a defamation action to proceed.
The court found that the imputations in question were indeed capable of bearing defamatory meanings, which were likely to injure the plaintiff in his profession. However, the court also found that some of the imputations were too vague or involved false innuendos, making them incapable of being the basis of a defamation action. The court was particularly concerned with the identification of the persons to whom the defamatory statements were directed. Ultimately, the court decided to strike out the vague and innuendo-based imputations, but granted leave to replead with more specific and clear allegations.
In summary, the court ordered that the vague and innuendo-based imputations were to be struck out, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to include more specific allegations. This decision provided clarity on the nature of the defamation claims that could proceed while ensuring that the plaintiff had an opportunity to clarify and strengthen their case.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the imputations were capable of bearing defamatory meanings and whether the court should strike them out under the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules. A secondary issue was the identification of the persons to whom the defamatory imputations were directed. The court needed to determine if the imputations were sufficiently specific to allow for a defamation action to proceed.
The court found that the imputations in question were indeed capable of bearing defamatory meanings, which were likely to injure the plaintiff in his profession. However, the court also found that some of the imputations were too vague or involved false innuendos, making them incapable of being the basis of a defamation action. The court was particularly concerned with the identification of the persons to whom the defamatory statements were directed. Ultimately, the court decided to strike out the vague and innuendo-based imputations, but granted leave to replead with more specific and clear allegations.
In summary, the court ordered that the vague and innuendo-based imputations were to be struck out, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to include more specific allegations. This decision provided clarity on the nature of the defamation claims that could proceed while ensuring that the plaintiff had an opportunity to clarify and strengthen their case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Imputations struck out
Leave to replead
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.