Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd

The applicant, Bradley William Hazeldean, commenced defamation proceedings against the respondent, Austal Ships Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant claimed damages for defamation in relation to a work reference allegedly given by the respondent to a recruitment agency. The respondent, a ship builder, employed the applicant as an apprentice and then as a tradesman fabricator/welder. The applicant's employment was terminated on the ground of redundancy. After the applicant applied for a job with a competitor, he was informed by the recruitment agency that his application was not being pursued due to comments made by the respondent. The applicant sought to obtain details of the reference provided by the respondent, but the respondent declined to provide any information. The applicant subsequently obtained an order for discovery of the reference. The respondent produced a form that appeared to be a reference check, which indicated that the applicant required improvement in safe work practices, teamwork, and communication, and that he was capable of doing good work but needed to work on those areas. The applicant alleged that the respondent, through an employee, spoke defamatory words to a representative of the recruitment agency, and sought to interrogate the respondent regarding the words spoken. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the proposed interrogatories were improper because the applicant was fishing to ascertain whether defamatory words had been spoken rather than seeking to ascertain precisely what defamatory words had been spoken. The court considered the relevant principles regarding a plaintiff's ability to interrogate a defendant as to whether the defendant spoke the words pleaded in the statement of claim, or words to that effect. The court also considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to interrogate more generally as to what words were spoken. The court held that the applicant was entitled to interrogate the respondent as to whether the respondent spoke the words pleaded in the statement of claim, or words to that effect. The court further held that the applicant was entitled to interrogate the respondent as to what words were spoken, as the applicant had established by uncontradicted affidavit evidence that the respondent had made a slanderous imputation of a definite character against him. The court allowed the applicant's application to interrogate the respondent in part.