Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 2]
Case
•
[2013] WASC 365
•9 OCTOBER 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
MAHER -v- NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD [No 2] [2013] WASC 365
[2013] WASC 365
9 OCTOBER 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 2], the plaintiff sought damages for defamation against the defendant, a media company, following the publication of a book by one of its employees. The book included content that the plaintiff claimed was defamatory. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought aggravated damages for the embarrassment caused by the publication. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could maintain a separate defamation action in respect of the book, despite a previous defamation proceeding involving the same parties, and whether the plaintiff's claims for aggravated damages were valid. The court also considered the relevance of case management principles in the context of the strike-out application.
The court held that the plaintiff could indeed bring a separate defamation action in respect of the book, as the publication of the book constituted a new and distinct tort. The court emphasised that each publication must be assessed on its own merits, and that the plaintiff had not waived their right to pursue separate actions for different publications. Regarding the aggravated damages, the court found that the plaintiff had suffered embarrassment due to the publication, but the claims for aggravated damages were struck out as they did not meet the requisite threshold. The court concluded that the plaintiff's embarrassment, while genuine, did not reach the level of seriousness necessary to warrant an award of aggravated damages.
In summary, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with their separate defamation action in respect of the book. However, the claims for aggravated damages were dismissed as they did not meet the necessary criteria. The court also noted that case management considerations played a role in the decision to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The final orders of the court included the striking out of specific paragraphs and the allowance of the plaintiff to continue with their defamation action.
The court held that the plaintiff could indeed bring a separate defamation action in respect of the book, as the publication of the book constituted a new and distinct tort. The court emphasised that each publication must be assessed on its own merits, and that the plaintiff had not waived their right to pursue separate actions for different publications. Regarding the aggravated damages, the court found that the plaintiff had suffered embarrassment due to the publication, but the claims for aggravated damages were struck out as they did not meet the requisite threshold. The court concluded that the plaintiff's embarrassment, while genuine, did not reach the level of seriousness necessary to warrant an award of aggravated damages.
In summary, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with their separate defamation action in respect of the book. However, the claims for aggravated damages were dismissed as they did not meet the necessary criteria. The court also noted that case management considerations played a role in the decision to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The final orders of the court included the striking out of specific paragraphs and the allowance of the plaintiff to continue with their defamation action.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Aggravated & Exemplary Damages
-
Strike out application
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Leigh v Sanchez [2024] QDC 123
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Dabrowski v Greeuw
[2014] WADC 175
Leigh v Sanchez
[2024] QDC 123
Walsh v Bennetts
[2014] WASC 453
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
1
Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW v Manefield
[2012] NSWCA 123
Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW v Manefield
[2012] NSWCA 123
Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd
[1999] WASC 264