Li v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 85 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4641 of 2004

ABBIE LI First Plaintiff
and
BY FOREVER YOUNG PTY LTD Second Plaintiff
v
THE HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES PTY LTD First Defendant
(ACN 004 113 937)
and
KEITH MOOR Second Defendant

---

JUDGE: GILLARD J
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 26 to 28 February; 1, 2, 5-9, 13-16, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 27 March
2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 April 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Li & anor v The Herald and Weekly Times & anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2007] VSC 109

---

DEFAMATION – Libel – Eight articles in newspapers – Some in same edition – Connected and repeated – The two articles in same edition should be one cause of action – Necessity to read whole article to determine defamatory imputations – May determine damages on global basis - Articles defamatory of person – Claim by company – Articles not defamatory of trading company – Defence of justification established by defendants – Plaintiffs fail – Observations on damages – Claim for loss of income – Necessity of proper pleading and proof – Evidence inadequate and speculative – Evidence – Use of evidence of conduct showing lack of faith in case – Circumstantial evidence.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs  Mr J.M. Selimi Starnet Legal Pty Ltd
For the Defendants  Mr W. Houghton QC with Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Ms G. Schoff

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Basic Facts and Defamatory Articles ..............................................................................................2

The Issues ..........................................................................................................................................12

Plaintiffs’ Proofs...............................................................................................................................26

Ms Li’s Proofs ...................................................................................................................................33

1. Article 1.....................................................................................................................................34

2. Article 2.....................................................................................................................................39

3. Article 3.....................................................................................................................................40

4. Article 4.....................................................................................................................................40

5. Article 5.....................................................................................................................................42

6. Article 6.....................................................................................................................................43

7. Article 7.....................................................................................................................................48

8. Article 8.....................................................................................................................................53

Ms Li’s Prima Facie Case ................................................................................................................53

By Forever Young Pty Ltd’s Proofs ...............................................................................................54

1. Article 1.....................................................................................................................................54

2. Article 2.....................................................................................................................................55

3. Article 4.....................................................................................................................................56

4. Article 5.....................................................................................................................................57

Company’s causes of action ...........................................................................................................57

The Defences.....................................................................................................................................58

The Articles and Justification ........................................................................................................62

(i) Credibility................................................................................................................................62

(ii) Defence of Justification.........................................................................................................84

(iii) Articles 1 – 5 (inclusive) and 8............................................................................................84

(iv) Articles 6 and 7 ...................................................................................................................108

Conclusions – Liability .................................................................................................................111

(i) Ms Li’s Claims.......................................................................................................................111

(ii) The Company’s Claims ......................................................................................................112

(iii) The Polly Peck Defence of Justification ..........................................................................112

(iv) Defence of Fair Comment .................................................................................................113

Damages...........................................................................................................................................114

Special Damages – Alleged Pecuniary Loss..............................................................................118

CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................134

Attachment “A”.........................................................................................................................135

Attachment “B” .........................................................................................................................137

Attachment “C”.........................................................................................................................138

Attachment “D”.........................................................................................................................139

Attachment “E” .........................................................................................................................140

Attachment “F”..........................................................................................................................141

......................................................................................................................................................142

Attachment “G”.........................................................................................................................143

Attachment “H” ........................................................................................................................144

HIS HONOUR:

  1. A proceeding instituted by writ, in which two plaintiffs seek damages for defamation arising out of the publication of eight articles in the Herald Sun newspaper in this State.

    Parties

  2. The first plaintiff, Ms Abbie Li (“Ms Li”), is a 48 year old Chinese woman, formerly a registered Chinese herbal medicine practitioner, who carried on practice at Level 4, 24 Collins Street, Melbourne from early 2000 to early 2006.

  3. The second plaintiff, By Forever Young Pty Ltd (“Forever Young”), is a company registered in June 2001, which carried on business at the same premises as Ms Li. Forever…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Li v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty 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
[2007] VSC 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Li v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs, Mr Li and his wife, along with their company, suing the defendants, The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd, for defamation caused by eight articles published in newspapers. The articles were alleged to have damaged the plaintiffs' reputations and caused financial harm to their business. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around whether the articles were defamatory, if they were defamatory, whether the defendants could justify their publication, and if the plaintiffs could prove the financial harm they claimed.

The court first considered whether the articles were defamatory, concluding that they were indeed defamatory of the plaintiffs individually. However, the articles were not defamatory of the plaintiffs' trading company. The court then addressed the defence of justification, finding that the defendants had established this defence, meaning the articles were truthful. Consequently, the plaintiffs' defamation claim failed. The court also examined the plaintiffs' claim for loss of income but found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim, and their pleadings were inadequate. The evidence presented was deemed speculative, and the use of circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove the claimed damages.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the defendants were justified in publishing the articles and that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proved their claims for damages. The court did not award any damages to the plaintiffs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.