Gregory Russell v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd

GREGORY RUSSELL v WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD & ORS
 [2013] ACTSC 159 (9 August 2013)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS ­– claim in defamation ­– strike out application by defendants ­– whether imputations arising from published material differ in substance – application allowed in part

Court Procedures Act 2006 (ACT), r 425

No. SC 391 of 2012

Judge:             Burns J            
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              9 August 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 391 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

BETWEEN:       GREGORY RUSSELL

Plaintiff         

AND:                WIN CORPORATION PTY   LTD

First Defendant

AND:NINE NETWORK AUSTRALIA   PTY LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND:LEILA MCKINNON

Third Defendant

AND:ROBIN BAILEY

Fourth Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Burns J
Date:  9 August 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Imputation (c) of the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim be struck out. 

1. The costs of the Application dated 25 February 2013 will be reserved.

1. The plaintiff claims damages for defamation arising out of material said to have been published by the defendants on 1 April 2012.  The first defendant is the licensee of the television station by which the material is said to have been published, and the second defendant is the producer and distributor of the television program said to have contained the impugned material.  The third and fourth defendants were presenters on the television program.

1. By an Amended Application in Proceeding dated 25 February 2013 the defendants seek orders:

a)            Pursuant to r 425 of the Court Procedures Act 2006 (ACT) paragraphs 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(h), 5(j) and 5(k) of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out.

1. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads the imputations the plaintiff says arise from the published material:

5.        The segment was defamatory of the plaintiff.

Particulars of defamatory imputations conveyed by the segment:

(a)       that the plaintiff while Chief Executive Officer at   Airservices Australia; spent more than $240,000 of   taxpayers’ money in a manner that was absolutely mad;

(b)that the plaintiff wasted more than $240,000 of taxpayers’ money on himself while Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia;

(c)that the plaintiff spent more than $240,000 of taxpayers’ money on himself while Chief Executive Officer at Airservices Australia on such self-indulgent things as luxury hotel accommodation and fine dining;

(d)       that the plaintiff lived a high life at the expense of taxpayers;

(e)that the plaintiff selfishly spent more than $118,000 of taxpayers’ money on his personal accommodation, including the most expensive room at the Cable Beach Resort in Broome;

(f)that the plaintiff self-indulgently wasted more than $2,500 of taxpayers’ money on taxis;

(g)that the plaintiff selfishly spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money on fuel for his own use;

(h)that the plaintiff selfishly spent taxpayers’ money by treating himself to the absolute best accommodation, food and wine when away from home on work duties;

(j)that the plaintiff self-indulgently spent $61,000 of taxpayers’ money on himself at the best restaurant[s] and on the best wine;

(k)that the plaintiff was unfair to…