Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd - [2004] WASC 210

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: HAZELDEAN -v- AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD [2004] WASC 210

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 24 AUGUST 2004

DELIVERED : 24 AUGUST 2004

PUBLISHED : 1 OCTOBER 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 1177 of 2003

BETWEEN: BRADLEY WILLIAM HAZELDEAN
Plaintiff
AND
AUSTAL SHIPS PTY LTD (ACN 079 160 679)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out defence - Whether defendant's answers to interrogatories inadequate - Whether inconsistent with statement by counsel - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA), O 26A

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M J McPhee
Defendant: Mr J D MacLaurin

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Michell Sillar McPhee
Defendant: Clayton Utz

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

City Newspapers Co Ltd v Evening Standard Newspaper Co (1891) 17 VLR 368
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v Whinfield (1920) VLR 225
Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 44
Spedley Securities Ltd (In Liq) v Bank of New Zealand (1991) 27 NSWLR 73
Stanfield Properties Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [1983] 2 All ER 249
The Corporation of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane v Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) [1995] 2 Qd R 121
Trades Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd & Ors (1984) 56 ALR 647

Case(s) also cited:

Casey v Australian Broadcasting Coroporation [1981] 1 NSWLR 305
Goodson v Grierson [1908] 1 KB 761
H Clark (Doncaster) Limited v Wilkinson [1965] 1 All ER 934
McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 War 62

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the plaintiff for an order that the defence be struck out and that judgment be entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed. The ground of the application, in essence, is that the defendant has failed properly to answer interrogatories dated 4 May 2004 administered by the plaintiff and/or the answers are an abuse of process.
On 24 August, after hearing argument on the application, I ordered that it be dismissed for reasons which I briefly stated then, on the basis that I would provide more detailed reasons if requested to do so by either party. I have now been so requested by the plaintiff.
The issues in this action are outlined in an earlier decision, reported as Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 44. Put shortly, the plaintiff sues, among other things, for damages for slander in respect of an alleged publication by the defendant of defamatory statements concerning him in the course of providing an oral reference to an employment agency, Jervoise Bay Recruitment, acting on behalf of a prospective employer.
Before commencing this action, the plaintiff instituted proceedings for pre‑action discovery under O 26A of the Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA) and obtained an order that the defendant provide discovery of all documents in its possession custody or power in connection with the plaintiff's employment by the first defendant and…

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 Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd 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: [2004] WASC 210
Decision Date: 1 OCTOBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hazeldean versus Austal Ships Pty Ltd came before the court, where the plaintiff, Hazeldean, sought to have the defendant's defence struck out due to perceived inadequacies in their answers to interrogatories. The primary dispute revolved around whether the answers provided by Austal were insufficient and inconsistent with a statement made by their counsel. The court was tasked with determining the adequacy of the answers and whether they aligned with the statements made during legal proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's responses to the interrogatories were satisfactory and consistent with their counsel's statements. The court had to assess whether the answers provided by Austal were sufficient to warrant a striking out of their defence. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the answers were in conflict with the statements made by Austal's counsel, and if so, whether this warranted any legal consequences.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant's answers to the interrogatories were adequate and did not warrant a striking out of their defence. The court concluded that the answers were consistent with the statements made by counsel and that the perceived inconsistencies were not significant enough to justify any legal remedy. As a result, the court dismissed the application to strike out the defence. The court emphasised that the adequacy of the answers to interrogatories and the consistency with counsel's statements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the unique facts of each case. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that the adequacy of responses to interrogatories should be evaluated in the context of the overall case.

Orders