KENYON -v- SABATINO [2013] WASC 76
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 76 | |
| Case No: | CIV:3017/2010 | 19, 28 & 29 JUNE 2012 | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 15/03/13 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Defendants responsible for publication | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TERENCE GILBERT KENYON MICHELE SABATINO MICHAEL STEPHEN ANDERTON |
Catchwords: | Defamation Preliminary question Liability for publication Inference from unexplained failure of a party to give evidence |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 86 ALJR 522 Bataille v Newland [2002] All ER (D) 480 (Jul) Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969 Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243 Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; (2011) 244 CLR 352 McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982 RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 199 CLR 620 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJQB 231 The Queen v Cooper (1846) 8 QB 533 Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; (1928) 41 CLR 331 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
MICHELE SABATINO
First Defendant
MICHAEL STEPHEN ANDERTON
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Preliminary question - Liability for publication - Inference from unexplained failure of a party to give evidence
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Defendants responsible for publication
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr M C Goldblatt
First Defendant : Mr P A Kyle
Second Defendant : Mr P A Kyle
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Lavan Legal
First Defendant : Haynes Robinson
Second Defendant : Haynes Robinson
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 86 ALJR 522
Bataille v Newland [2002] All ER (D) 480 (Jul)
Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969
Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243
Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361
Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; (2011) 244 CLR 352
McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982
RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3; (2000) 199 CLR 620
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
Speight v Gosnay (1891) 60 LJQB 231
The Queen v Cooper (1846) 8 QB 533
Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; (1928) 41 CLR 331
(Page 3)
1 LE MIERE J: In 2009 the plaintiff, Mr Kenyon, was…
Continue reading Kenyon v Sabatino
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- KENYON -v- SABATINO [2013] WASC 76
- Case
- [2013] WASC 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kenyon v Sabatino was brought before the court to address a dispute regarding defamation. The plaintiff, Kenyon, alleged that defamatory statements had been made about them by the defendants, Sabatino and others, through the publication of certain materials. The central issue was whether the defendants were legally responsible for the publication of the allegedly defamatory content.
The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants were liable for the publication of the defamatory material. This involved assessing whether the defendants had indeed published the content in question and whether their actions could be considered defamatory under Australian law. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants' failure to provide evidence in their defence could be interpreted as an admission of liability.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented, including the content of the publications and the circumstances surrounding their dissemination. The court concluded that the defendants were indeed responsible for the publication of the defamatory material. The court noted that the defendants' unexplained failure to provide evidence in their defence was significant, as it could reasonably be inferred that they were unable to deny their involvement or the defamatory nature of the content. Based on this reasoning, the court held the defendants liable for the publication of the defamatory statements.
The final orders of the court held the defendants accountable for the publication of the defamatory material. The court did not provide further details on the specific nature of the orders or any potential remedies for the plaintiff. However, it was clear that the defendants' liability for the publication was established, setting the stage for potential further proceedings to address the consequences of their actions.
The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants were liable for the publication of the defamatory material. This involved assessing whether the defendants had indeed published the content in question and whether their actions could be considered defamatory under Australian law. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendants' failure to provide evidence in their defence could be interpreted as an admission of liability.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented, including the content of the publications and the circumstances surrounding their dissemination. The court concluded that the defendants were indeed responsible for the publication of the defamatory material. The court noted that the defendants' unexplained failure to provide evidence in their defence was significant, as it could reasonably be inferred that they were unable to deny their involvement or the defamatory nature of the content. Based on this reasoning, the court held the defendants liable for the publication of the defamatory statements.
The final orders of the court held the defendants accountable for the publication of the defamatory material. The court did not provide further details on the specific nature of the orders or any potential remedies for the plaintiff. However, it was clear that the defendants' liability for the publication was established, setting the stage for potential further proceedings to address the consequences of their actions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Defendants responsible for publication
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.