Hore-Lacy v David Syme & Co Ltd - [1998] VSC 96

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 5747 of 1996

DYSON HORE-LACY Plaintiff
v
DAVID SYME & CO. LIMITED and

PATRICK SMITH Defendants

---

JUDGE: HEDIGAN, J.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 10 September 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 1 October 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSC 96

---

DEFAMATION - Defendant denying plaintiff's imputations - Defendant justifying words in natural ordinary meaning - Defendant not pleading meanings relied on by defendant - Particulars insufficient - Whether obliged to plead meanings.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr. A.G. Uren, Q.C. Williams Winter & Higgs
For the Defendant Mr. M. Dreyfus Minter Ellison

DYSON HORE-LACY v. DAVID SYME & CO. LIMITED & ANOR

HIS HONOUR:

By writ dated 31st May 1996 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding against the defendants for damages for libel arising from the publication in the Age newspaper of 30th May of an article under the headline "Clubs have no right to mislead, misinform". The second defendant, Patrick Smith, was the author of the published article. The writ was generally endorsed with the claim to which I have referred. Subsequently the plaintiff delivered a statement of claim which was almost immediately amended on 10th July 1996. By his statement of claim, the plaintiff, then the President of the Fitzroy Football Club, a barrister and Queen's Counsel, claimed to have been defamed by the article to which I have referred, a copy of which was annexed to the statement of claim. By paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff pleaded as "the natural and ordinary meaning" of the article a number of imputations. I set them out:

"6. The article in its natural and ordinary meaning meant and was
understood to mean that

(a)

the Plaintiff had told lies concerning the Fitzroy Football Club's financial situation during the radio and television interviews referred to;

(b)

the Plaintiff had treated members of Fitzroy Football Club who attended at their annual general meeting as credulous dupes or fools;

(c)

the Plaintiff had lied to the members of the Fitzroy Football Club who attended at the annual general meeting;

(d)

the Plaintiff had dishonestly misled and misinformed members of the Fitzroy Football Club and supporters concerning plans for the merger of the Club;

(e)

the Plaintiff had deceived members of the Fitzroy Football Club by telling them that no decision would be made without them having a vote;

(f)

the Plaintiff had been guilty of sharp practice in obtaining proxies from shareholders of the Fitzroy Football Club."

There were routine pleadings of loss and damage and other paragraphs dealing with material said to support the claim for exemplary damages which forms part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants.
By its defence, paragraph 6, the defendant pleaded as follows:

"6. They deny the allegations in paragraph 6. Further, in its natural and ordinary meaning, the article was true in substance and in fact."

The defence went on to plead fair comment on a matter of public…

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 Hore-Lacy v David Syme & Co 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: [1998] VSC 96
Decision Date: 1 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hore-Lacy v David Syme & Co Ltd, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamation arising from an article published by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the article contained defamatory imputations about their professional conduct and integrity. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was required to plead specific meanings of the words in question to which they intended to rely on as a defence of justification. The court had to consider whether the defendant was obliged to plead particular meanings of the words to which they intended to rely, when the meanings were not pleaded in the defence but were relied upon during the trial.

The court held that the defendant was not obliged to plead particular meanings of the words in question if those meanings were not pleaded in the defence. The court emphasised that particulars of defamation must be precise and specific to enable the defendant to understand the nature of the plaintiff's claim. The court found that the particulars provided by the defendant were insufficient as they did not specify the meanings on which the defendant intended to rely as a defence of justification. Consequently, the court ruled that the defendant was not obliged to plead particular meanings of the words that were not pleaded in the defence.

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision that the defendant was not obliged to plead particular meanings of the words in question that were not pleaded in the defence. The court emphasised the importance of precise and specific particulars of defamation to enable the defendant to understand the nature of the plaintiff's claim. The court did not make any orders for costs.

Orders