MARTINDALE -v- ALLISTER [2004] WASCA 243
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 243 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:167/2000 | 22 JUNE 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MCLURE J LE MIERE J | 4/11/04 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | IAN EDWARD MARTINDALE KAREN ALLISTER |
Catchwords: | Defamation Allegation of sexual harassment by female employee about male employee Justification |
Legislation: | Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Beale v GIO of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Essey v Harding [2002] WASC 209 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Horrocks v Lowe [1974] 1 All ER 662 Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349 Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1 SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporak [1927] AC 37 Wollongong Corporation v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435 Daniels v Burfield (1994) 125 ALR 33 Doherty v Liverpool District Hospital (1991) 22 NSWLR 284 Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666 Shorey v PT Ltd (2003) 197 ALR 410 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : MARTINDALE -v- ALLISTER [2004] WASCA 243 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MCLURE J
LE MIERE J
- Appellant
AND
KAREN ALLISTER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : ANDERSON J
File Number : CIV1625 OF 1992
Catchwords:
Defamation - Allegation of sexual harassment by female employee about male employee - Justification
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr K J Martin QC & Mr G D Robertson
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Freehills
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
Beale v GIO of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Essey v Harding [2002] WASC 209
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Horrocks v Lowe [1974] 1 All ER 662
Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349
Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporak [1927] AC 37
Wollongong Corporation v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435
(Page 3)
Case(s) also cited:
Daniels v Burfield (1994) 125 ALR 33
Doherty v Liverpool District Hospital (1991) 22 NSWLR 284
Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666
Shorey v PT Ltd (2003) 197 ALR 410
(Page 4)
1 MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal from a judgment of Anderson J dated 26 September 2000 by which the learned Judge dismissed with…
Continue reading Martindale v Allister
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Martindale v Allister [2004] WASCA 243
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 243
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Martindale v Allister involved an allegation of defamation made by a female employee against a male colleague. The female employee, Ms Martindale, accused Mr Allister of sexual harassment. This matter came before the court to determine whether the statements made by Ms Martindale were justified and, if not, whether they constituted defamation. The court was required to consider the balance between freedom of speech and the protection of reputation in the workplace.
The court examined whether the statements made by Ms Martindale were true and if they were made in good faith. The primary legal issue was whether Ms Martindale's allegations of sexual harassment were substantiated by evidence. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Mr Allister had acted with malice or ill-will in making the statements. The court also considered the public interest in the disclosure of the alleged harassment, particularly in the context of workplace safety and integrity.
In its decision, the court found that the statements made by Ms Martindale were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court determined that the allegations were made without proper foundation and that there was no evidence to support the claim of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court ruled that the statements were defamatory. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the evidence did not support Ms Martindale's claims. As a result, the defamation claim was unsuccessful, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the statements made by Ms Martindale were true and if they were made in good faith. The primary legal issue was whether Ms Martindale's allegations of sexual harassment were substantiated by evidence. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Mr Allister had acted with malice or ill-will in making the statements. The court also considered the public interest in the disclosure of the alleged harassment, particularly in the context of workplace safety and integrity.
In its decision, the court found that the statements made by Ms Martindale were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court determined that the allegations were made without proper foundation and that there was no evidence to support the claim of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court ruled that the statements were defamatory. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the evidence did not support Ms Martindale's claims. As a result, the defamation claim was unsuccessful, and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.