MAHER -v- NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD [2013] WASC 254

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 254
Case No:	CIV:2918/2012	Heard:	24 APRIL 2013
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	5/07/13
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Five imputations struck out Leave to replead
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LILLIAN MAHER MICHAEL GALLAGHER NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD PAUL CLEARY
Catchwords:	Defamation Pleadings Strike out application False innuendos Interlocutory threshold Natural and ordinary meanings
Legislation:	Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA), s 5 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971(WA), O 20 r 19(1)(a), (c)
Case References:	Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135 Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186 Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542 Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 235 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 260 Rambal v Cahill [2012] WASC 353 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL [1975] HCA 6; (1975) 134 CLR 1 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MAHER -v- NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD [2013] WASC 254 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 24 APRIL 2013 DELIVERED : 5 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2918 of 2012 BETWEEN : LILLIAN MAHER

First Plaintiff

MICHAEL GALLAGHER

Second Plaintiff

AND

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

First Defendant

PAUL CLEARY

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Pleadings - Strike out application - False innuendos - Interlocutory threshold - Natural and ordinary meanings

Legislation:

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA), s 5

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971(WA), O 20 r 19(1)(a), (c)

(Page 2)

Result:

Five imputations struck out

Leave to replead

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

Second Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

First Defendant : Mr T K Tobin QC & Ms C Galati

Second Defendant : Mr T K Tobin QC & Ms C Galati

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

Second Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendant : Carmel Galati

Second Defendant : Carmel Galati

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186
Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542
Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263
Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 235
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 260
Rambal v Cahill [2012] WASC 353
Sungravure Pty Ltd v Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL [1975]…

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 Maher v Nationwide News 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: [2013] WASC 254
Decision Date: 5 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd dealt with a defamation action where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published false and defamatory statements about them. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether certain imputations in the defendant's publication were capable of bearing defamatory meanings, thereby necessitating a strike-out application. The dispute centred around whether the words published by the defendant, when read in their natural and ordinary sense, had defamatory connotations that warranted further legal proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the five impugned imputations were capable of bearing defamatory meanings as a matter of law, thereby justifying a strike-out application. This required the Court to consider the natural and ordinary meanings of the words used and whether they conveyed defamatory meanings to an ordinary person. The Court needed to balance the principles of pleadings and the interlocutory threshold in defamation cases to decide whether these imputations were so lacking in substance that they did not warrant further consideration.

The Court determined that four of the five impugned imputations were incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning when considered in their natural and ordinary sense. These imputations were therefore struck out. However, the Court found that the remaining imputation, concerning the plaintiff's alleged involvement in a corrupt and dishonourable act, was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. As a result, the Court refused to strike out this imputation and granted leave for the plaintiff to replead. The decision underscored the importance of interpreting words in their natural and ordinary meanings and highlighted the delicate balance between the freedom of expression and the protection of an individual's reputation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Five imputations struck out

Leave to replead

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.