| 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:
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
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] VSC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.