Mustard v Woodside Energy Ltd - [2012] WASC 461

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MUSTARD -v- WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD [2012] WASC 461

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 29 OCTOBER 2012

DELIVERED : 4 DECEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 1492 of 2012

BETWEEN: JILLIAN MUSTARD
Plaintiff
AND
WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Practice and procedure - Application to strike out paragraphs of statement of claim - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 6 r 2, O 20 r 13A

Result:

Application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr R W Richardson
Defendant: Mr M C Goldblatt

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Slater & Gordon
Defendant: Lavan Legal

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

Allister v Martindale (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 950653, 29 November 1995)
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 119
Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82
Barham v Lord Huntingfield [1913] 2 KB 193
Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1251; [2001] EMLR 45
Buckeridge v Walter [2006] WASCA 22
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Egg & Egg Pulp Marketing Board v KH Korp Tocumal Trading Co Pty Ltd [1963] VR 378
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186
Freer v Zeb [2008] EWHC 212 (QB)
Gourand v Fitzgerald (1888) 37 WR 55
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos [2002] NSWCA 41; (2002) 54 NSWLR 165
Jameel v The Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2003] EWCA Civ 1694; [2004] EMLR 6
Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130
Jingellic Minerals NL v Abigroup Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 566
Keogh v Incorporated Dental Hospital of Ireland [1910] 2 IrR 166
L Grollo & Co Pty Ltd v Nu‑Statt Decorating Pty Ltd (No 2) (1978) 34 FLR 81
Lazarus v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (1985) 1 NSWLR 188
Leitch v Abbott (1886) 31 Ch D 374
Mayfield‑Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419
Millar v Harper (1888) 38 Ch D 110
Monte v Mirror Newspapers [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Dunlop [2009] VSC 331
Russell v Stubbs Ltd [1913] 2 KB 200
Snelgrove v Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (in liq) (Receiver and Manager Appointed) [2011] WASC 103
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Trade Practices Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) (1995) 58 FCR 426
Wallis v Meredith [2011] EWHC 75 (QB)
Whyte v Ahrens (1884) 26 Ch D 717

LE MIERE J: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a commercial manager until October 2009. On 10 April 2011, Mr Voelte the Chief Executive Office of the defendant, in a speech to a seminar spoke words claimed by the plaintiff to be defamatory of her. The plaintiff says that in November 2011, the plaintiff and the…

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 Mustard v Woodside Energy Ltd 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: [2012] WASC 461
Decision Date: 4 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mustard v Woodside Energy Ltd involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mustard, against the defendant, Woodside Energy Ltd. The dispute arose from alleged defamatory statements made by Woodside regarding the plaintiff's professional conduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to hold Woodside liable for defamatory remarks that allegedly damaged their professional reputation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by Woodside were indeed defamatory and if the court should strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The primary focus was on the application to strike out specific parts of the plaintiff's allegations, which the court had to determine based on the facts presented in the case.

The court examined the statements in question and assessed whether they were capable of carrying a defamatory meaning. It was found that the paragraphs in dispute did not contain defamatory material, as they were either true or constituted fair comment on matters of public interest. Consequently, the court decided to strike out the paragraphs in question. The court held that the application was successful on its own facts, and these specific allegations were dismissed from the case.

The final orders of the court included the striking out of certain paragraphs of the statement of claim as they did not meet the criteria for defamation. The court directed that the proceeding would continue with the remaining allegations as appropriate.

Orders