Langley v Age Company Ltd - [2001] VSC 370

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 6114 of 2000

TIMOTHY LANGLEY	Plaintiff
v
THE AGE COMPANY LTD (ABN 004 262 702)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 and 19 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 October 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Langley v The Age Company Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 370

---

Defamation – interrogatories for examination of defendant corporation – principles – objection disallowed that corporation could not answer because has no mind – newspaper rule – further answers ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms G. Schoff	Coadys
For the Defendant	Mr M. Wheelahan	Minter Ellison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parties................................................................................................................................................... 2

The Proceeding................................................................................................................................... 2

A Corporation Answering Interrogatories.................................................................................... 5

A. Interrogatories 2, 3, 13 and 14 and Answers Thereto............................................................. 9

B. Interrogatories 5(b) and 16(b).................................................................................................... 25

C. Interrogatory 6............................................................................................................................. 25

D. Interrogatory 7............................................................................................................................. 31

E. Interrogatory 8.............................................................................................................................. 33

F. Interrogatories 25 and 26............................................................................................................ 33

G. Interrogatory 26........................................................................................................................... 34

H. Interrogatory 28........................................................................................................................... 35

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35

HIS HONOUR:

The return of a summons filed by the plaintiff in a defamation proceeding, seeking further and better answers to interrogatories delivered by him for the examination of the defendant.

Parties

The plaintiff, Timothy Langley ("Reverend Langley"), was, at all relevant times, an ordained Minister of the Uniting Church and occupied senior positions in the Wesley Central Parish Mission.

The defendant, The Age Company Limited ("The Age"), is and was, at all material times, the publisher of "The Age" newspaper, which is circulated throughout this State and the other States and Territories of Australia.

In addition to the parties, there are two persons who played a significant role in the circumstances of the alleged defamatory publications. The first, Reverend Leonie Purcival ("Reverend Purcival"), was, at all material times, a Uniting Church Minister. At all relevant times, she was not an employee or agent of The Age. The other person is Mr Peter Ellingsen ("Mr Ellingsen"), who is and was, at all relevant times, a journalist employed by The Age.

The Proceeding

On 12 July 2000, The Age published an article on p.8 of its Education pages headed – "Working for God, Not Mammon". The article was written by the Reverend Purcival. The article covered some five columns of the paper, and was critical of Reverend Langley.

On 27 July 2000, The Age published another article concerning the Reverend Langley, written by Mr Ellingsen and headed "Wesley broke rules on pay: Church official".

On 14 July 2000, the Reverend Langley issued a proceeding in the Major Torts List against The Age, claiming damages for defamation in respect of the article published on 12 July 2000. Subsequently, the plaintiff successfully applied to amend his statement of claim and pleaded a further cause of action, namely, defamation arising out of the publication of the article on 27 July 2000.

The plaintiff was granted leave to further amend his statement of claim, which was done…

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 Langley v Age Company 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: [2001] VSC 370
Decision Date: 3 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Langley v Age Company Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria where the plaintiff sought to sue the defendant, a newspaper corporation, for defamation. The plaintiff alleged that an article published in one of the defendant's newspapers caused damage to their reputation. The defendant corporation objected to answering interrogatories on the grounds that it could not provide answers as it had no mind and could not be examined. The plaintiff argued that the corporation could respond to the interrogatories as it had employees who could provide the necessary information. The court had to determine whether the corporation could be compelled to answer interrogatories and whether the newspaper rule applied in this situation.

The court examined the principles governing the examination of corporations through interrogatories and the applicability of the newspaper rule. The court held that the corporation could indeed answer interrogatories as it had employees who could provide the necessary information. The court rejected the defendant's argument that it could not answer because it had no mind. The court also found that the newspaper rule applied in this situation, allowing the plaintiff to seek further answers from the corporation. The court ordered the defendant to provide further answers to the interrogatories.

The court's decision was based on the understanding that corporations could be examined through their employees and that the newspaper rule allowed for the examination of corporations in defamation cases. The court found that the defendant corporation could be compelled to answer interrogatories and that the newspaper rule applied in this situation. The final orders of the court were that the defendant corporation was to provide further answers to the interrogatories as ordered by the court.

Orders