Forrest v Askew

In the matter of Forrest v Askew, the plaintiff, Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest, sought a determination from the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding the defamatory imputations made in a statement of claim. The defendant, Michael Askew, published an article alleging that Forrest had misled investors in Fortescue, a matter Forrest sought to address through this litigation. The primary issues before the court were whether the imputations were capable of being conveyed and whether Forrest's claim for aggravated damages was limited to circumstances existing at the time of the publication.

The court examined the specific language used in the article to determine if the imputations were capable of being conveyed. It found that the language, particularly in paragraph 5.2, was arguably capable of implying dishonesty on Forrest's part despite reporting that no binding agreements had been made. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that defamation actions proceed fairly, discouraging excessive refinement of pleaded imputations. The court also considered whether Forrest's claim for aggravated damages was limited to the circumstances at the time of publication or could include subsequent events, such as a failure to apologise. The court concluded that the law did not restrict the grounds for such claims to the moment of publication.

In summary, the court ruled that the imputations in question were capable of being conveyed and denied the application to strike them out. The court also noted that Forrest's claim for aggravated damages was not limited to circumstances at the time of publication.