Granitto v Gostelow - [2018] WASC 242

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   GRANITTO -v- GOSTELOW [2018] WASC 242
CORAM:   LE MIERE J
HEARD:   23 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   15 AUGUST 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1004 of 2018
BETWEEN:   ALESSANDRA GRANITTO
Plaintiff
AND
CHRISTOPHER GOSTELOW
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Interlocutory application - Application for further and better particulars - Defamation action - Whether particulars provided sufficiently specific and precise

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett
Defendant	:	Ms C Taggart

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett + Co
Defendant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Ashcroft v Foley [2012] EWCA Civ 423
Hayson v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 376

LE MIERE J:

Summary

In this action, the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant for the publication of an email which she says is defamatory of her. In his amended defence the defendant pleads the defence of truth and a 'Polly Peck' defence of truth. The plaintiff sought particulars of facts pleaded by the defendant in support of his pleas of truth. The defendant objected to answering most of the requests on the ground that he is not required to enunciate the issues that are to be tried, to identify the case that has to be met, or to enable the plaintiff to plead to the defence. The plaintiff now applies for an order that the defendant provide answers to the plaintiff's request for further and better particulars. For the reasons which follow the defendant should provide answers to requests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.2 of the plaintiff's request filed 26 February 2018 for further and better particulars of the defendant's defence. The defendant should amend [35.5] and [36.1] of his defence by deleting the word 'including' in each paragraph.

The plaintiff's claim

The plaintiff and Mr Marrapodi are employed by the State within the central office of the Department of Education (the Department) at Royal Street, East Perth (Central Office). Mr Marrapodi is the plaintiff's manager. The defendant is employed by the State within the Department and based at a different office. On 22 August 2017 the defendant met Mr Marrapodi at the Central Office. At the conclusion of the meeting, the defendant says there was an incident involving the plaintiff, Mr Marrapodi and the defendant. The defendant sent an email to his line manager, Ms Brown, recording his observations of the incident. With the defendant's authority, Ms Brown forwarded the email to other employees of the Department. The plaintiff says that the email is defamatory of her.

The statement of claim

In her statement of claim, the plaintiff says the email gives rise to the imputations that the plaintiff had behaved in her workplace in a manner such as:
7.1… to cause her fellow workers to be fearful;
7.2… to cause her fellow workers to feel threatened;
7.3… to give rise to concerns in a fellow worker that the plaintiff would…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Granitto v Gostelow and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WASC 242
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Granitto v Gostelow involved an interlocutory application within a defamation action. The plaintiff, Mr. Granitto, sought further and better particulars from the defendant, Mr. Gostelow, regarding the defamatory statements made against him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff contended that the particulars provided by the defendant were not sufficiently specific or precise, thereby hindering the plaintiff's ability to adequately prepare a defence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the particulars given by the defendant were adequate to allow the plaintiff to respond effectively to the allegations. The court needed to assess whether the details provided were clear and precise enough to enable the plaintiff to understand the nature of the claims and to prepare a suitable defence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's need for more information was justified and whether such information could be reasonably obtained.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while the particulars provided some details, they lacked specificity in key areas, particularly regarding the timing and context of the defamatory statements. The court concluded that the plaintiff's need for further information was justified, as the current particulars were insufficient to mount an effective defence. The court granted the application for further and better particulars, requiring the defendant to provide more specific information to allow the plaintiff to adequately respond to the allegations. The court emphasized the importance of clear and precise particulars in defamation cases to ensure fairness and to avoid unnecessary delays in litigation.

Orders