McEloney v Massey

Case [2015] WADC 126

McELONEY -v- MASSEY [2015] WADC 126



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WADC 126
Case No:CIV:3141/201420-21 AUGUST & 29 SEPTEMBER 2015
Coram:SCHOOMBEE DCJ26/10/15
PERTH
49Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:BARRY McELONEY
STEPHANIE MASSEY

Catchwords:
Defamation
Posts on Facebook page of Poms in Perth reviewing and criticising services of accountant
Defamatory statements
Defence of justification
Defence of honest opinion
Aggravated damages
Quantum

Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 25, s 31, s 34, s 36

Case References:
Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Astaire v Campling [1966] 1 WLR 34
Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183
Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd (No 2) [1965] 1 WLR 805
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock (2007) 232 CLR 245
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Cole v The Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) and Hudson (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62
Convery v Irish News Ltd [2008] NICA 14
Costello v Random (1999) 137 ACTR 1
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186
Goldsbrough v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 524
Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 410
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane (2005) Aust Tort Reports 81-789
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77
Kemsley v Foot [1951] 2 KB 34
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
London Artists Ltd v Littler [1969] 2 QB 374
Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation v Di Masi [2014] VSCA 104
Maisel v Financial Times Ltd [1915] 3 KB 336
Marshall v Smith [2013] WASC 451
McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2013] NSWSC 933
Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Mirror Newspapers v Jools (1985) 5 FCR 507
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Warton [2002] NSWCA 377
New South Wales v IJ Index Plc (2007) 17 VR 80
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Piscioneri v Brisciani [2015] ACTSC 106
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460
Raul Amon International Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1998] 4 VR 798
Rigby v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1964]…

Continue reading McEloney v Massey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McEloney v Massey [2015] WADC 126
Case
[2015] WADC 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McEloney v Massey, the plaintiff sought damages for defamation against the defendant, who had posted comments on the Facebook page "Poms in Perth", which was dedicated to reviewing and criticising the services of accountants. The plaintiff argued that the comments made by the defendant were defamatory, leading to harm to his professional reputation and financial loss. The defendant claimed the comments were protected under the defences of justification and honest opinion. The court was required to determine whether the comments were indeed defamatory, whether the defences of justification and honest opinion applied, and if so, whether aggravated damages were appropriate and to determine the quantum of damages, if any, owed to the plaintiff.

The court held that the comments were not defamatory, as they did not lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Even if the comments were defamatory, the court found that the defence of honest opinion applied. The comments were based on the defendant's genuine beliefs and experiences, and they were expressed in a manner that did not indicate a lack of genuineness. Additionally, the court found that the defence of justification applied, as the comments were substantially true. The court also held that aggravated damages were not warranted, as the defendant's conduct did not display any element of cruelty, malice, or oppression. Given these findings, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs. The court found that the defendant's comments, even if defamatory, were protected under the defences of justification and honest opinion. The court also held that aggravated damages were not appropriate, and no damages were owed to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim 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.