JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
CITATION: LIM -v- TVW ENTERPRISES LTD [2002] WASC 214
CORAM: BARKER J
HEARD: 19 AUGUST 2002
DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2002
FILE NO/S: CIV 1251 of 2002
BETWEEN: MICHAEL TIEN HAO LIM
Plaintiff
AND
TVW ENTERPRISES LTD (ACN 008 679 294)
Defendant
FILE NO/S :CIV 1252 of 2002
BETWEEN :MICHAEL TIEN HAO LIM
Plaintiff
AND
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Television news broadcast - Strike-out application - Whether pleading discloses reasonable cause of action or alternatively may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of action - Whether sole imputation complained of in statement of claim is capable of arising from broadcast - Imputation untenable - Pleading struck out
Defamation - Two television news broadcasts - Strike-out applications on both
First broadcast - Whether pleading discloses reasonable cause of action or alternatively may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of action - Whether imputation capable of arising from broadcast - Whether further imputation that the plaintiff has so conducted himself as to give reasonable grounds for suspicion of criminal conduct is capable of being reasonably held - Whether pleading so ambiguous as to constitute a "weasel word" - Pleading struck out and plaintiff given liberty to amend
Second broadcast - Whether imputation that the plaintiff has so conducted himself as to give reasonable grounds for suspicion of criminal conduct is capable of arising from broadcast - Plaintiff given liberty to amend
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Civ 1251 of 2002: Application to strike out par 4 of statement of claim granted
Civ 1252 of 2002: Application granted
Plaintiff given liberty to amend statement of claim
Category: A
Representation:
CIV 1251 of 2002
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R W Richardson
Defendant: Mr R L Le Miere QC & Ms C Galati
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Gerard Edwards
Defendant: Edwards Wallace
CIV 1252 of 2002
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr R W Richardson
Defendant: Mr A C Willinge
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Gerard Edwards
Defendant: Blake Dawson Waldron
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Armitage v Double Bay Newspapers Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW (Hunt J); 26 September 1991
Corse v Robinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970669; 8 December 1997
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Emerson v Walker [1999] WASC 265
Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542
Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Pickering v Publishing and Broadcasting Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW (Levine J); 21 June 1996
Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2001] NSWSC 10
Ronci v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 239
Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148
Case(s) also cited:
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Ors v Abboud & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA;…
Continue reading Lim v TVW Enterprises Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lim v TVW Enterprises Ltd [2002] WASC 214
- Case
- [2002] WASC 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principle that statements of suspicion alone may not necessarily convey the suggestion of misconduct. The decision in Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation was cited as relevant, where Levine J held that such statements do not necessarily imply misconduct unless the context or additional information provides sufficient grounds for such an inference. In Rakhimov, the court concluded that the imputation of suspicion without more did not automatically imply misconduct. The reasoning extended to the fact that a statement of suspicion, without additional context or evidence, does not inherently suggest that the plaintiff had engaged in the misconduct that gave rise to the suspicion. This principle was further considered in the context of the present case, where the court had to assess whether the broadcast in question crossed the threshold from a mere suspicion to an imputation of actual misconduct.
Ultimately, the court determined that the broadcast did not sufficiently imply that Lim had conducted himself in a manner warranting suspicion of criminal activity. The language used, while potentially suggestive, did not meet the threshold required to imply actual misconduct. Therefore, the court dismissed Lim's claim, finding that the broadcast did not defame him as alleged. The court's decision underscored the importance of context and the necessity for more than a mere statement of suspicion to establish defamation based on imputed misconduct.
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
In support of these latter submissions the defendant refers to, and relies upon, in particular the unreported decision of Levine J in Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2001] NSWSC 10. This decision was also referred to by Hasluck J in this Court in Ronci v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 239, a decision delivered on 7 September 2001. In Rakhimov the broadcast included the following words spoken in respect of the plaintiff:"He claims to be a successful businessman but the FBI think differently. They suspect him of drug trafficking and the list of his associates include some of the most dangerous criminals in the World." Levine J took the opportunity, following a submission on behalf of the second defendant, to consider whether words published to the effect that a plaintiff is "suspected" of certain criminal conduct imputes the meaning that the plaintiff has "so conducted himself" as to give "reasonable grounds" for such suspicion. Levine J considered a number of earlier dicta by Hunt J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, including Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148. In Whelan at 160C, Hunt J finally expressed the view that a statement of suspicion, without more, "is obviously capable of conveying the suggestion that the plaintiff had so conducted himself as to have warranted that suspicion". In Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (supra) at 301 ‑ 302, Mason J (with whom Wilson J agreed) accepted that, if a charge is said to have been laid against the plaintiff, the ordinary reasonable reader may conclude that the police suspected, with reasonable cause, that he is guilty. However, Gibbs CJ at 295 and Brennan J at 303 ‑ 304 each preferred to reserve his opinion upon that question. The fifth member of the Court (Aickin J) passed away prior to the handing down of the decision. In Rakhimov Levine J, at par 21, observed that, without a concession concerning the point, "I do not agree that the 'compressed' statement of suspicion is 'obviously capable' of conveying the suggestion as to conduct as a fixed rule of universal application." His Honour acknowledged in par 22 that a particular publication could be understood as stating specified conduct, on the one hand, and the existence of suspicion arising therefrom, on the other; or sufficient material that identifies the conduct or behaviour as the basis for the suspicion. Levine J at par 23 stated as follows:"The evolution of the imputation in the form he had pleaded or in a similar form (the plaintiff so conducted himself/so misconducted himself) has in my respectful view been the result of a pre‑occupation with technical matters of form (active passive voice) and with the application of the test ("the real test") namely, what would the defendant have to prove, which test, in my view, is not a sole test but no more than an available test. The evolution has been at the expense of commonsense in regard to the fundamental question of what the matter complained of 'means'".