MTQ HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- LYNCH & ORS [2005] WASC 162

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 162
Case No:	CIV:2557/2004	Heard:	6 MAY 2005
Coram:	MASTER NEWNES	Delivered:	25/07/05
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Statement of claim struck out in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MTQ HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 104 520 934) RAYMOND JOHN LYNCH JOHN JOSEPH LINDEN CHARLES JUSTIN BRIAN BIRMINGHAM JOHN LEEDERT NOORDHOEK RCR TOMLINSON LTD (ABN 81 008 898 486)
Catchwords:	Defamation Application to strike out statement of claim Whether imputation capable of being conveyed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342 Harding v Essey [2005] WASCA 30 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MTQ HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- LYNCH & ORS [2005] WASC 162 CORAM : MASTER NEWNES HEARD : 6 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 25 JULY 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2557 of 2004 BETWEEN : MTQ HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 104 520 934)

Plaintiff

AND

RAYMOND JOHN LYNCH

JOHN JOSEPH LINDEN

CHARLES JUSTIN BRIAN BIRMINGHAM

JOHN LEEDERT NOORDHOEK

First Defendants

RCR TOMLINSON LTD (ABN 81 008 898 486)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out statement of claim - Whether imputation capable of being conveyed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Statement of claim struck out in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

First Defendants : Mr D M Stone

Second Defendant : Mr D M Stone

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett & Co

First Defendants : Williams & Hughes

Second Defendant : Williams & Hughes

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

Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
Harding v Essey [2005] WASCA 30
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the defendants to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or alternatively as being embarrassing. The defendants contend that no reasonable reader of the words complained of, having knowledge of the extrinsic facts pleaded, would understand the words to bear the meaning pleaded or any defamatory meaning.

2 The plaintiff pleads that it is and was at all material times a substantial shareholder in the second defendant. The first, second and third-named first defendants are and were each directors of the second defendant. The fourth-named first defendant is and was an alternate director of the second defendant.

3 The plaintiff pleads in par 6 that, on or about 25 November 2004, the first defendants published of and concerning the plaintiff, by posting to each of the shareholders of the second defendant and by publishing on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MTQ Holdings Pty Ltd v Lynch and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] WASC 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MTQ Holdings Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Raymond John Lynch, John Joseph Linden, Charles Justin Brian Birmingham, John Leedert Noordhoek, and RCR Tomlinson Ltd, alleging defamation. The dispute centred on words published by the defendants concerning MTQ Holdings' opposition to a proposed capital raising by RCR Tomlinson Ltd. The defendants sought to have the statement of claim struck out, arguing that the words did not convey any defamatory meaning. The primary legal issue was whether the words complained of were capable of conveying the defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff.

The court examined the words published by the defendants and the context provided by the plaintiff's prior letter to shareholders. The court applied the established principles that a statement of claim should not be struck out if it is arguable that a reasonable reader would understand the words to bear the pleaded meaning. The court found that while the imputation that MTQ Holdings lied to shareholders was not arguably open on the words complained of, the words could convey an imputation that MTQ Holdings had not been honest or had not been frank with shareholders. Therefore, the court did not strike out the statement of claim in its entirety but allowed the plaintiff to amend certain parts of the pleadings to clarify the basis of vicarious liability. The court struck out paragraphs 7 and 9 of the statement of claim and granted leave to the plaintiff to replead, with directions on the time for filing an amended statement of claim and on costs.

Orders