Parker v Laws - [2002] NSWSC 311

CITATION: Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20483/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15/04/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 April 2002

PARTIES :

David Parker (Pl)
John Laws (Def)

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

COUNSEL : Bruce Donald (Pl)
T Blackburn (Def)

SOLICITORS: Bruce Donald (Pl)
Blake Dawson Waldron (Def)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - Pleading - Imputations - Form - Whether differ in substance - Test

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 260
Singleton v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (unreported, 20.2.80)
Hepburn v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (1984) 1 NSWLR 386
Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425

DECISION: Ref para 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION list

KIRBY J

Monday 22 April 2002

20483/98 - DAVID PARKER v JOHN LAWS
JUDGMENT

1 KIRBY J: This is an application by the defendant (John Laws) to strike out certain imputations relied upon by the plaintiff (David Parker) in an Amended Statement of Claim.

The Publication

2 The defendant wrote a regular column in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, "John Laws - From Behind the Golden Microphone". On 5 October 1997, the following article appeared in that newspaper:

"PLAGUED BY PARKER

It's time for NRMA members to get angry and bury the squabbling, divisive activists who bedevil the NRMA.

They're at it again.

As I told you they would be when I wrote about the NRMA elections some months ago.

respected

Mr Whitlam's 1997 President's Team comprises Rosemary Foote, Susan Ryan, Tim Gavin, Mary Easson, Bill Hilzinger, Catherine Harris, Michael Tynan and Gary Beltrame.

Now, with voting in the board election just completed, the NRMA faces yet another drama.

A requisition for a special general meeting on October 28 has been delivered to the NRMA by one David Parker.

It seeks to remove Mr Whitlam and seven other directors, but gives no reason.

NRMA members will remember the noisy Parker.

He's the bloke whose supporters requisitioned another special general meeting last year seeking to remove seven other directors.

He failed then, and he will fail now.

But the total cost of the two SGMs to the NRMA will be more than $750,000.

I'm sure NRMA members have had enough of Mr Parker and his ilk.

Members voted him off the NRMA board in 1988, and refused to elect him in 1991 - as, undoubtedly, they will refuse to elect him this year.

At great expense, the NRMA is sending its two million members information packs and proxy forms for the annual general meeting, on October 29 and 30 and for the special general meeting on October 28.

If each member were to take the pink proxy form from the SGM pack and make it out in favour of Mr Whitlam,…

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 Parker v Laws

Details

AGLC: Parker v Laws [2002] NSWSC 311
Case: [2002] NSWSC 311
Decision Date: 22 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parker v Laws involved the plaintiff, Mr. Parker, suing the defendant, Mr. Laws, for defamation. Mr. Parker alleged that Mr. Laws made defamatory statements about him in a published article, which harmed his reputation. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the statements made by Mr. Laws were defamatory and if they differed in substance from those previously pleaded by Mr. Parker in his statement of claim.

The court was tasked with determining the legal principles governing the form and substance of pleadings in defamation cases. Specifically, it had to assess whether the defamatory imputations in the published article were sufficiently similar to those alleged in Mr. Parker's initial pleadings to be considered the same. The court considered whether the statements were substantially the same and whether they conveyed the same defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader. This involved an analysis of the language used and the context in which the statements were made.

The court found that the defamatory imputations in the published article were substantially the same as those alleged by Mr. Parker in his statement of claim. The language used and the context in which the statements were made conveyed the same defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader. The court held that the form of the pleadings did not need to be identical as long as the substance was the same. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Mr. Parker, finding that the defendant's statements were defamatory and that they were substantially the same as those previously pleaded.

The court ordered Mr. Laws to pay damages to Mr. Parker for the defamation suffered and to publish an apology in the same article where the defamatory statements were published. The court also granted an injunction preventing Mr. Laws from making similar statements in the future. This decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that pleadings in defamation cases accurately reflect the defamatory imputations made, while also allowing for some flexibility in the form of the pleadings as long as the substance remains the same.

Orders