Legal Research
Cases
Moir v Flint

Moir v Flint

Case [2001] WASC 183 16 July 2001

Breach of Contract

Implied Terms

Misrepresentation

Unconscionable Conduct

Restitution

Specific Performance

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

MOIR -v- FLINT & ANOR [2001] WASC 183

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 183
Case No:	CIV:1164/2001	Heard:	19 JUNE 2001
Coram:	McLURE J	Delivered:	16/07/01
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Part of defence struck out with leave to amend
PDF Version

Parties:	KATHERINE JULIE MOIR JOHN FLINT NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828)
Catchwords:	Defamation Application to strike out justification defence and Polly Peck plea Justification of plaintiff's imputations based on the words complained of Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Supreme Court Rules, O 20 r 19(1)(a) and (c)
Case References:	Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125 Gumina v William (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1979) 2 NSWLR 663 Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219 Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90 Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289 Wallis & Ors v Wallis [2001] WASC 134 Brown v Marron & Anor [2001] WASC 100 Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697 Buttes Gas & Oil Co v Hammer [1975] 1 QB 557 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 McDonald's Corp v Steel [1995] 3 All ER 615 Waters v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers [1961] 1 WLR 967

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MOIR -v- FLINT & ANOR [2001] WASC 183 CORAM : McLURE J HEARD : 19 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 16 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 1164 of 2001 BETWEEN : KATHERINE JULIE MOIR

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN FLINT

First Defendant

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out justification defence and Polly Peck plea - Justification of plaintiff's imputations based on the words complained of - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules, O 20 r 19(1)(a) and (c)

Result:

Part of defence struck out with leave to amend

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr J D MacLaurin

First Defendant : Mr J F Raftos

Second Defendant : Mr J F Raftos

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendant : Edwards Wallace

Second Defendant : Edwards Wallace

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

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy [2000] VSCA 24
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gumina v William (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1979) 2 NSWLR 663
Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219
Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90
Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289
Wallis & Ors v Wallis [2001] WASC 134

Case(s) also cited:

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 Moir v Flint

Details

AGLC: Moir v Flint [2001] WASC 183
Case: [2001] WASC 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moir v Flint, the plaintiff, Katherine Moir, brought a defamation action against the defendants, John Flint and Nationwide News Pty Ltd, regarding statements made in a radio broadcast. The defendants sought to justify their statements as true or to rely on a Polly Peck plea, arguing that the plaintiff had misled the radio host, Paul Murray, and that she had sold her story to Channel 7 for financial gain. The plaintiff applied to strike out parts of the defendants' defence, arguing that it was either manifestly groundless or prejudicial. The court, McClure J, considered the application, focusing on whether the words complained of were capable of supporting the imputations made in the defence. The court found that while some parts of the defence could be remedied, others were not supported by the words complained of and needed to be struck out. Specifically, the court struck out paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 4.1 of the defence, allowing the defendants leave to amend their pleadings to address the deficiencies. The court emphasised that the defendants needed to clearly and fully plead their case, particularly in relation to the financial motivations of the plaintiff and the specific misrepresentations made. The outcome of the case was that certain parts of the defendants' defence were struck out, but they were granted leave to amend their pleadings to address the court's concerns.

Orders