Legal Research
Cases
Poland v Hedley [No 6]

Poland v Hedley [No 6]

Case [2024] WASC 168 3 May 2024

Jurisdiction

Defamation

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Discovery & Disclosure

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Defamation

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   POLAND -v- HEDLEY [No 6] [2024] WASC 168
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   14 DECEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   3 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1370 of 2019
BETWEEN:   GREGORY DAVID POLAND
Plaintiff
AND
KATE HEDLEY
First Defendant
FAIRFAX DIGITAL AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND PTY LTD
Second Defendant
NATHAN JOHN HONDROS
Third Defendant
CLAIRE BRADLEY
Fourth Defendant
DAVID BIRCH
Fifth Defendant
ANDREW WILLIAM HASTIE
Sixth Defendant
ZAK RICHARD FRANCIS KIRKUP
Seventh Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings application for leave to join additional plaintiffs and for leave to amend amended substituted statement of claim following successful strike out application - Applications refused - Turns on own facts

Defamation - Where plaintiff alleges third parties who provided material to media defendants and had telephone discussions concerning the publication of a newspaper article based on materials provided - Whether third parties publishers of the matters complained of - Third parties not publishers - Proposed re‑amended statement of claim fails to disclose reasonable cause of action against third parties for publication of matters complained of - Turns on own facts

Unlawful means conspiracy - Where proposed re‑amended substituted statement of claim fails to plead facts that identify the proposed additional plaintiffs as the subject of an agreement or understanding and where particulars fail to support plea that defendants intended to injure the proposed additional plaintiffs - Where proposed re‑amended statement of claim fails to articulate causal connection between the acts undertaken to implement the conspiracy and the losses claimed by the plaintiff and where proposed re‑amended statement of claim fails to articulate causal connection between the acts undertaken to implement the conspiracy and the losses claimed by the proposed additional plaintiffs - Proposed re-amended statement of claim fails to disclose reasonable cause of action and would be embarrassing - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to amend substituted statement of claim refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett & Mr A Tharby
First Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Second Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Third Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Sixth Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
Seventh Defendant	:	Mr M C Goldblatt

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett
First Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Second Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Third Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Fourth Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Fifth Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Sixth Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Seventh Defendant	:	Carmel Galati

Cases referred to in decision:

Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897; (2014) 88 NSWLR 670
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152
Central Coast Council v Norcross Pictorial Calendars Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSCA 75
Dank v Whittaker (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1062
Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1537
English v Vantage Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189
Jingellic…

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 Poland v Hedley [No 6]

Details

AGLC: Poland v Hedley [No 6] [2024] WASC 168
Case: [2024] WASC 168
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Poland v Hedley [No 6] involved the plaintiff, Poland, seeking to join additional plaintiffs and amend their statement of claim after a successful strike out application. The defendants, Hedley, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and would be embarrassing. The legal issues before the court were whether the third parties, who provided material to the media defendants and had telephone discussions concerning the publication of a newspaper article, were publishers of the matters complained of, and whether the proposed re-amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the third parties for the publication of those matters.

The court found that the third parties were not publishers of the matters complained of as they did not control the content of the publication or the manner in which it was published. The court also found that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the third parties for the publication of the matters complained of as it did not identify the third parties as the publishers of the matters complained of. Additionally, the court found that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to articulate a causal connection between the acts undertaken to implement the conspiracy and the losses claimed by the plaintiff and the proposed additional plaintiffs.

The court refused the plaintiff's application for leave to join additional plaintiffs and for leave to amend the amended substituted statement of claim, finding that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and would be embarrassing. The court held that the application turned on its own facts and could not be decided on the basis of any general principles.

The court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the particular pleadings before it. The court held that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to identify the proposed additional plaintiffs as the subject of an agreement or understanding and failed to support the plea that the defendants intended to injure the proposed additional plaintiffs. The court also found that the proposed re-amended statement of claim failed to articulate a causal connection between the acts undertaken to implement the conspiracy and the losses claimed by the plaintiff and the proposed additional plaintiffs. The court's decision was therefore based on the specific circumstances of the case and cannot be relied upon as a general principle.

Orders