Legal Research
Cases
Poland v Hedley [No 6]

Poland v Hedley [No 6]

Case [2024] WASC 157 3 May 2024

Jurisdiction

Defamation

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Defamation

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   POLAND -v- HEDLEY [No 6] [2024] WASC 157
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

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

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett
First Defendant	:	Carmel Galati
Second Defendant	:	Carmel Galati

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

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 Minerals NL v Abigroup Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 566
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a ﬁrm) [2002] 2 AC 1; [2001] 1 All ER 481
Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2021] AC 39; [2021] 1 All ER 585; [2020] UKSC 31
Metaxas v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2020] WASCA 27
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASCA 105; (2021) 57 WAR 468
Poland v Hedley [No 5] [2023] WASC 294
Trackem Pty Ltd v Revenue…

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 157
Case: [2024] WASC 157
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Poland v Hedley [No 6] involved the plaintiff, Poland, bringing an application for leave to join additional plaintiffs and to amend the amended substituted statement of claim. This application followed a successful strike out of the original statement of claim. The defendants, Hedley, opposed the application. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could join additional plaintiffs and amend the statement of claim to include allegations of defamation and conspiracy through unlawful means.

The primary legal issues were whether the proposed re-amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the third parties for the publication of the matters complained of and whether it could sufficiently articulate a cause of action for conspiracy through unlawful means. The court examined whether the third parties were publishers of the defamatory material and if the proposed additional plaintiffs were the subjects of an agreement or understanding as alleged. Additionally, the court assessed whether the re-amended statement of claim could establish 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 found that the proposed re-amended statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the third parties for the publication of the matters complained of, as the third parties were not the publishers. Furthermore, the court concluded that the re-amended statement of claim failed to adequately plead facts identifying the proposed additional plaintiffs as subjects of an agreement or understanding, and did not establish a causal connection between the alleged acts and the claimed losses. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to join additional plaintiffs and to amend the statement of claim. The court's reasoning was that the proposed re-amended statement of claim would be embarrassing and did not meet the necessary legal standards.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the applications be refused. The court held that the matter turned on its own unique facts, and the proposed amendments did not sufficiently address the legal deficiencies identified.

Orders