Martin v Trustrum - [2001] TASSC 109

[2001] TASSC 109

CITATION: Martin v Trustrum [2001] TASSC 109

PARTIES:  MARTIN, Janine Marcia
  v
  TRUSTRUM, Thomas

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  836/2001
DELIVERED ON:  7 September 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  30 August 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Master Holt

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure - Tasmania - Practice under the Rules of Court - Pleadings - Striking out.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas).
Aust Dig Procedure [272]

Defamation - Actions for defamation - Pleading defences.
Aust Dig Defamation [119]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  D J Gunson
             Defendant:  In Person
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Gunson Williams
             Defendant:  In Person

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 109
Number of Paragraphs: 12

Serial No 109/2001
File No 836/2001

JANINE MARCIA MARTIN v THOMAS TRUSTRUM

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MASTER HOLT

7 September 2001

This is a defamation action. The plaintiff, Mrs Martin, has delivered a statement of claim and the defendant, Mr Trustrum, who is unrepresented, has delivered a defence and counterclaim. Mrs Martin complains that some parts of the defence offend various principles and rules of pleading and that the counterclaim fails to disclose a cause of action against her, and wants the impugned parts struck out.

It is convenient to review the pleadings generally before moving to the specific complaints. Much of what Mrs Martin has alleged in her statement of claim has not been the subject of a specific or implicit response in the defence. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 2000, r250, allegations not traversed in the defence are taken to have been admitted. Applying the rule, the following allegations quoted below from the statement of claim are admitted:

"1   The Plaintiff is and was at all material times the Executive Director of The Law Society of Tasmania.
2    The Plaintiff is and was at all material times a legal practitioner.
3    In or about the month [sic] of May and June 2001 the Defendant published an article of and concerning the Plaintiff under the heading
'A Vexatious Complaint - Another True Horror Story from the Secret Files of the Solicitor From Hell, J M Martin (Pictured) Law Society of Tasmania' (hereinafter referred to as the first article).

4    Annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'A' is a true copy of the first article comprising 9 pages.
5    …
6    The Defendant has published the article to
(a)Judy Tierney;
(b)ABC Television;
(c)Annette Flong
(d)BBC London;
(e)Simon Bevilacqua;
(f)Anne Barbelink;
(g)The Mercury Newspaper;
(h)Mike Munro;
(i)A Current Affair (a television current affairs programme);
(j)Heather Long;
(k)Barry Prismall;
(I)The Examiner Newspaper;
(m)Angela McLaren;
(n)Anthony Haneveer;
(o)The Advocate Newspaper;
(p)Ric Paterson;
(q)Tim Cox;
(r)Annie Warburton;
(s)Jules Retrot;
(t)Chris Wisbey;
(u)ABC Radio
(v)138 persons who are described by the Defendant as members of the Freedom (FOI) Fighters United;
(w)legal practitioners throughout the State of Tasmania;
(x)and divers other persons in the State of Tasmania.

7 …
8 On or about the 1st day of July 2001 the Defendant published of and concerning the Plaintiff a further article entitled
Law Society of Tasmania Exposed!…

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.

Continue reading Martin v Trustrum

Details

AGLC: Martin v Trustrum [2001] TASSC 109
Case: [2001] TASSC 109
Decision Date: 7 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin v Trustrum, the plaintiff, Mrs. Martin, filed a defamation action against the defendant, Mr. Trustrum. Mrs. Martin, the Executive Director of the Law Society of Tasmania, alleged that Mr. Trustrum published several defamatory articles concerning her, causing damage to her reputation and profession. The court was tasked with deciding whether certain parts of the defendant's pleadings should be struck out, and if the counterclaim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against Mrs. Martin.

The main legal issues in this case were the adequacy of the defendant's pleadings and the validity of his counterclaim. The court examined the defendant's pleadings to determine whether they adhered to the principles and rules of pleading, and if the counterclaim was sufficient in establishing a cause of action against Mrs. Martin. The court found that the defendant's pleadings did not adequately address the defamatory imputations and failed to properly plead the defences of justification and qualified protection. Furthermore, the counterclaim did not sufficiently disclose a reasonable cause of action against Mrs. Martin.

The court ruled that certain parts of the defendant's pleadings should be struck out due to their inadequacy and failure to comply with the relevant rules and principles of pleading. Specifically, the court struck out the defendant's assertions of different meanings for the allegedly defamatory words, as well as his plea of qualified protection. Additionally, the court struck out the defendant's counterclaim in its entirety, as it failed to establish a reasonable cause of action against Mrs. Martin.

In summary, the court found that the defendant's pleadings were inadequate in addressing the defamatory imputations and did not properly plead the defences of justification and qualified protection. Moreover, the counterclaim was struck out due to its failure to establish a reasonable cause of action against Mrs. Martin. As a result, the court ordered the removal of certain parts of the defendant's pleadings and the entire counterclaim.

Orders