Hill v Westfield - [2003] NSWSC 437

CITATION: Hill v Westfield & Anor [2003] NSWSC 437

HEARING DATE(S): 20 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

DECISION: (i) proceedings 20565 of 2002 - (A) imputation (d) struck out (B) the plaintiff to elect as to which of imputations (c), (f) and (g) he wishes to pursue (C) plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim; (ii) proceedings 20023 of 2003 - (A) imputations (a), (b) and (c) struck out (B) plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.

CATCHWORDS: defamation - imputations - difference in substance - incapable of being conveyed

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules Part 67 Rule 11(3)

CASES CITED: Greek Herald Pty Ld v Nikolopolous [2002] NSWCA 41; 54 NSWLR 165
Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500

PARTIES :
Geoffrey Hill - Plaintiff/ Respondent
Mark Westfield - First Defendant/ Applicant
Nationwide News Pty Ltd - Second Defendant/ Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20565/02; 20023/03

COUNSEL: BR McClintock SC - Plaintiff/ Respondent
TD Blackburn - Defendants/ Applicants

SOLICITORS: Aleco Vrisakis - Plaintiff/ Respondent
Blake Dawson Waldron - Defendants/ Applicants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

SIMPSON J

Friday 13 June 2003

20565/02 Geoffrey Hill v Mark Westfield & Anor
20023/03
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: Two proceedings (numbered 20565 of 2002 and 20023 of 2003) are before the court. In each the plaintiff, Geoffrey Hill, claims damages against the defendants, Mark Westfield and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, alleging that he was defamed by them in an article in The Australian newspaper, of which the second defendant was the publisher and the first defendant a journalist employed by the second defendant, in issues published, respectively, on 3 December 2002 and 15 January 2003. Both articles concern a Royal Commission into the well publicised collapse of a major insurance company, HIH.

proceedings 20565 of 2002

2 In the earlier article a reference was made to a:

“tidal wave of material coming out of the royal commission suggesting fraud and manipulation on a massive scale.”

3 This was followed by severe criticism of various relevant regulatory authorities, which, in turn, was followed by:

The Australian

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.

Continue reading Hill v Westfield

Details

AGLC: Hill v Westfield [2003] NSWSC 437
Case: [2003] NSWSC 437
Decision Date: 13 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Hill, sued the defendant, Westfield, for defamation. Hill alleged that Westfield had made defamatory statements about him, which included imputations of incompetence and dishonesty. Hill claimed that these statements were published to third parties and caused him significant damage to his reputation. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statements made by Westfield were capable of conveying the defamatory imputations that Hill alleged. Hill argued that the statements were defamatory because they implied that he was unfit for his profession and engaged in unethical conduct. Westfield, on the other hand, contended that the statements did not convey the alleged imputations and were incapable of being understood in the way that Hill suggested. The court needed to determine whether the statements were defamatory and if they conveyed the imputations that Hill claimed.

The court held that the statements made by Westfield were not capable of conveying the defamatory imputations that Hill alleged. The court found that the statements were ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways, none of which necessarily implied incompetence or dishonesty on the part of Hill. The court held that the difference in substance between the defamatory imputations alleged by Hill and the statements made by Westfield was too great to allow the statements to be considered defamatory. The court found that the statements were incapable of being conveyed in the way that Hill suggested, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for defamation failed.

The court dismissed Hill's claim and ordered him to pay Westfield's costs of the proceeding. The court held that the statements made by Westfield did not convey the defamatory imputations that Hill alleged, and therefore, Hill's claim for defamation was not made out. The court found that the difference in substance between the defamatory imputations and the statements made by Westfield was too great to allow the statements to be considered defamatory. The court held that the statements were incapable of being conveyed in the way that Hill suggested, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for defamation failed. The court dismissed Hill's claim and ordered him to pay Westfield's costs of the proceeding.

Orders