Judith Pugh v Sally Morrison

JUDITH PUGH v SALLY MORRISON & ANOR
[2011] ACTSC 44 (18 March 2011)

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – jurisdiction – cross-vesting legislation – action for damages for defamation -  application to transfer proceedings to Supreme Court of Victoria –which jurisdiction has closest connection to action– closest connection issue to be determined at trial – court satisfied transfer would be in the interests of justice – transfer ordered

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT), s 5(2)(b)(iii)
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 123, Chapter 9
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 22

Defamation Act 2005 (Victoria)

O’Connor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [1995] ACTSC 112
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
Ra v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1308
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz [2004] 221 CLR 400

No.  SC 889 of 2009

Judge:             Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              18 March 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No.  SC 889 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:JUDITH PUGH

Plaintiff

AND:SALLY MORRISON

First Defendant

HARDIE GRANT BOOKS PTY LTD

ACN 080 486 746

Second Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  18 March 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the action be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

1. This is an application for transfer to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) (the Cross-Vesting Act). The plaintiff claims damages for defamation in a book written by the first defendant and published by the second defendant. The book, After Fire, is a biography of the late Clifton Pugh, the distinguished painter.

1. The plaintiff asserts in the statement of claim that she is an author and art dealer and was Mr Pugh’s partner between 1970 and 1980.  They married in 1976 and divorced in 1981.  The plaintiff’s address set out in the statement of claim is in Brunswick, a suburb of Melbourne.  The address of both defendants is in Prahran, another Melbourne suburb.  The plaintiff asserts that the book was published in August 2009 in each State and Territory of Australia.  She annexes to her statement of claim four extracts from the book.  She pleads a number of imputations said to arise from the natural and ordinary meaning of each extract.  She claims aggravated as well as conventional damages, and sets out particulars of matters on which she relies in that regard.

1. Both defendants initially filed conditional notices of intention to respond but now concede jurisdiction and have filed unconditional notices.  Initially they sought an order that the action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but that part of the application is no longer pursued. 

1. Information from the publisher is that at 12 November 2009, the numbers of copies of the book sold in each State and Territory were:

Victoria	356
New South Wales	285
Queensland	99
Western Australia	50
South Australia	39
Australian Capital Territory	34
Tasmania	24
Total	887

1. This table was annexed to an affidavit by…