Perry v McIntosh - [2010] VSC 85

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 10014 of 2009

GEOFFREY ROBERT PERRY	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT MCINTOSH	First Defendant
and
PETER ROBERT RICHARDSON	Second Defendant
and
ANDRE JOHAN STOFFERS	Third Defendant
and
NEZIR de MAJ	Fourth Defendant
and
ADAM GRAHAM RICHMOND	Fifth Defendant
and
STEPHEN GRAHAM LOND	Sixth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 March 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Perry v McIntosh & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 85

---

DEFAMATION – Pleading – Statement of Claim – Plaintiff alleging defamatory words spoken by defendants at meeting – Whether plaintiff required to provide particulars of context – Whether words spoken by sixth defendant capable of bearing imputations pleaded.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	S K Wilson QC and Mr D J Bracken	Lawcorp Lawyers
For the Defendants	Ms R L Enbom	Yeldham Price O’Brien Lusk

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff and each of the six defendants were, at the time material to this proceeding, members of the Mustang Owners Club. In this proceeding, the plaintiff claims damages against the defendants for defamation in respect of comments, alleged to have been made by the defendants about the plaintiff, in the course of a monthly meeting of the club on 17 June 2009.

The plaintiff has delivered an Amended Statement of Claim, and the defendants have not, as yet, delivered their defences. The defendants have applied for the following orders:

(1)That the plaintiff provide further particulars of the words, which he was speaking in the course of an address he made to the meeting, and which immediately preceded each of the words which the second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants are alleged to have spoken about him by way of interjection during that address.
(2)That each of the imputations pleaded in paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim, in respect of the words alleged to have been spoken by the sixth defendant, be struck out.

The relevant background to the proceeding is contained in the Amended Statement of Claim. At the relevant time, the plaintiff was the treasurer of the club and a member of its committee. Each of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants were members of the committee of the club. The sixth defendant was the President of the club, the second defendants its Vice-President, and the third, fourth and fifth defendants each held other positions of office in the club. It is alleged in the pleading that the monthly meeting of the club, at which the defamatory words were spoken of the plaintiff, was attended by seventy members of the club.

Paragraph 10 of the Statement of Claim pleads the words which each defendant is alleged to have said in the course of that meeting. The particulars under paragraph 10, which were included in the pleading by way of amendment, set out some of the context in which it is…

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 Perry v McIntosh

Details

AGLC: Perry v McIntosh [2010] VSC 85
Case: [2010] VSC 85
Decision Date: 24 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perry v McIntosh involved a defamation dispute between the plaintiff, Perry, and the defendants, McIntosh and others. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory words were spoken by the defendants at a meeting. The defendants denied the allegations, leading to a court hearing to determine the validity of the claims. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was required to provide particulars of the context in which the alleged defamatory words were spoken, and whether the words spoken by one of the defendants were capable of bearing the imputations as pleaded. The court examined the nature of the alleged defamatory statements and the context in which they were made to assess the validity of the plaintiff's claims.

The court found that the plaintiff was not required to provide particulars of the context in which the alleged defamatory words were spoken, as the words themselves were capable of bearing the imputations pleaded. The court also held that the words spoken by one of the defendants were capable of bearing the imputations as pleaded, even though the context in which they were spoken was not specified. The court concluded that the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficient to allow the defendants to understand the nature of the allegations against them. The court further found that the words spoken by the sixth defendant were capable of bearing the imputations as pleaded, and that the plaintiff was not required to provide further particulars of the context in which they were spoken.

The court's decision in Perry v McIntosh provides guidance on the requirements for pleading defamation claims in Australian courts. The court's finding that the plaintiff was not required to provide particulars of the context in which the alleged defamatory words were spoken, and that the words themselves were capable of bearing the imputations pleaded, may be of particular relevance to practitioners in this area of law. The court's decision also highlights the importance of carefully considering the context in which alleged defamatory words are spoken, and the need for plaintiffs to ensure that their statements of claim are sufficient to allow defendants to understand the nature of the allegations against them.

Orders