McCormack v Trott - [2025] WASC 276

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   MCCORMACK -v- TROTT [2025] WASC 276
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   20 MAY 2025
DELIVERED          :   9 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2446 of 2024
BETWEEN:   GORDON NOEL JAMES MCCORMACK
Plaintiff
AND
MATTHEW JAMES TROTT
First Defendant
TRAINING SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to stay proceedings - Abuse of court processes - Application to strike out

Legislation:

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), s 115
Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 21

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J Maclaurin SC
First Defendant	:	Mr M L Bennett & Mr A J Tharby
Second Defendant	:	Mr M L Bennett & Mr A J Tharby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Fletcher Law
First Defendant	:	Bennett
Second Defendant	:	Bennett

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

Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2014] NSWCA 288
English v Vantage Holdings [2021] WASCA 47
Hazeldean v Austal Ships Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 44
Patrick Jebb as trustee for The Trafalgar West Investments Trust v Superior Lawns Australia Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 121
Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1994) 1 Qd R 156
Training Services Australia Pty Ltd v Saferight Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 7
UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; (2018) 265 CLR 77

SOLOMON J:

The application

In these proceedings, the plaintiff, Mr Gordon McCormack, sues Mr Mathew Trott and the company of which Mr Trott is a director and shareholder, Training Services Australia (TSA), for the tort of defamation. In this application, Mr Trott and TSA apply for a permanent stay of the defamation proceedings. If that application is not successful, Mr Trott and TSA, in the alternative, seek to strike out parts of Mr McCormack's statement of claim.

The evidence

In support of their application for a stay of the proceedings, the defendants filed an affidavit from Mr Trott dated 19 March 2025 (19 March Affidavit) and an affidavit from a legal practitioner with the firm acting for the defendants, Ms Jessica Haddad, dated 22 April 2025. In opposition to the stay application, Mr McCormack filed an affidavit dated 2 April 2025. The affidavits were received by the court without objection.

Background

An understanding of the application requires an explanation of the background context. In particular, it is necessary to explain the litigation that preceded these defamation proceedings (the initial proceedings).
Mr McCormack is the managing director of a company known as Saferight Pty Ltd (Saferight). Saferight and TSA are competitors. They both operate businesses that provide online training services for the mining industry in Western Australia. Simply put for present purposes, Saferight is Mr McCormack's company and TSA is Mr Trott's company.
In August 2023, TSA issued proceedings against Saferight and Mr McCormack and sought urgent ex parte injunctive relief. In those proceedings and in its urgent application, TSA alleged that Mr McCormack and Saferight had induced one of Saferight's…

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 McCormack v Trott

Details

AGLC: McCormack v Trott [2025] WASC 276
Case: [2025] WASC 276
Decision Date: 9 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were McCormack, the plaintiff, and Trott, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was a defamation claim brought by McCormack against Trott. The court in which the case was heard was the Federal Court of Australia. McCormack alleged that Trott had defamed him in a series of statements made on social media, which were intended to be seen by others and had been seen by at least one person. Trott filed an application to stay the proceedings on the grounds that McCormack had abused court processes and had also made an application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether McCormack had abused court processes and whether the application to strike out the statement of claim should be granted. In considering whether McCormack had abused court processes, the court needed to assess whether McCormack had acted in a way that was oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process. In determining whether the application to strike out should be granted, the court needed to consider whether the statement of claim disclosed a cause of action.

The court found that McCormack had not abused court processes and that the application to strike out the statement of claim should not be granted. The court noted that the defamation claim was not frivolous or vexatious, and that the plaintiff had a reasonable cause of action. The court also found that the application to stay the proceedings was an abuse of court process and was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court dismissed the application to stay and the application to strike out. The court found that the defamation claim was not frivolous or vexatious and that the plaintiff had a reasonable cause of action. The court ordered that the proceedings should continue and that the applications be dismissed with costs.

Orders