PISANO -v- THRUM [2005] WASC 35

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 35
Case No:	CIV:2436/2002	Heard:	2 & 9 FEBRUARY 2005
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	9/03/05
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GIGLIETTO PISANO CAMERON THRUM
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Defamation action Application to amend statement of claim Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Ansett (Operations) v Australian Federation of Air Pilots (1992) 1 VR 637 Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd v Brown [2002] WASC 44 Bishops Gate Insurance Australia Ltd (In Liq) v Deloitte Haskins & Sells [1999] 3 VR 863 Duke v Royalstar Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 273 Grubb v Bristol United Press [1963] 1 GB 309 Hughes v Gales (1995) 14 WAR 434 Inform Formwork Pty Ltd v McInnes Concrete Service Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950661; 15 November 1995 Latrobe Country Credit Co-operative Ltd v Smith & Ors (1999) 1 VR 440 Levi v Stirling Brass Founders Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 97029; 9 May 1997 Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Loughams v Oldhams Press Ltd [1963] 1 GB 299 Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton [1983] 2 AC 570 Northern Territory of Australia v Mengal (1995) ALJR 527 The State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PISANO -v- THRUM [2005] WASC 35 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 2 & 9 FEBRUARY 2005 DELIVERED : 9 MARCH 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2436 of 2002 BETWEEN : GIGLIETTO PISANO

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON THRUM

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Defamation action - Application to amend statement of claim - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to amend refused

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr P G Clifford

Defendant : Mr K J Martin QC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Staffa Lawyers

Defendant : Mullins Handcock

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Ansett (Operations) v Australian Federation of Air Pilots (1992) 1 VR 637
Arcadia Holdings Pty Ltd v Brown [2002] WASC 44
Bishops Gate Insurance Australia Ltd (In Liq) v Deloitte Haskins & Sells [1999] 3 VR 863
Duke v Royalstar Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 273
Grubb v Bristol United Press [1963] 1 GB 309
Hughes v Gales (1995) 14 WAR 434
Inform Formwork Pty Ltd v McInnes Concrete Service Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950661; 15 November 1995
Latrobe Country Credit Co-operative Ltd v Smith & Ors (1999) 1 VR 440
Levi v Stirling Brass Founders Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 97029; 9 May 1997
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Loughams v Oldhams Press Ltd [1963] 1 GB 299
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton [1983] 2 AC 570
Northern Territory of Australia v Mengal (1995) ALJR 527
The State of Queensland…

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 Pisano v THRUM

Details

AGLC: Pisano v THRUM [2005] WASC 35
Case: [2005] WASC 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a defamation action brought by Giglio Pisano against Cameron Thrumm, heard by Master Sanderson in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim, which was initially struck out for want of prosecution. The key legal issues were whether the plaintiff's delay in filing the amended statement of claim was inordinate or inexcusable, and whether the amended statement of claim adequately formulated a cause of action. The court considered the plaintiff's explanation for the delay, which included a period of unavailability due to a conference, a change in counsel, and difficulties in obtaining necessary information. Although the delay was significant, the court found it was not inordinate or inexcusable given the circumstances, particularly the forced retirement of counsel. The court also reviewed the content of the proposed amended statement of claim, identifying some factual inaccuracies and noting that certain allegations in the defamation claim did not align with the content of the impugned letter. The court allowed the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim, provided it addressed the identified issues and correctly formulated the defamation claim. The final orders regarding costs and the form of the amended statement of claim were to be determined in subsequent hearings.

Orders