Price v Crikey Media Pty Ltd - [2001] VSC 392

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 8078 of 2000

BETWEEN

STEPHEN WILLIAM PRICE	Plaintiff
and
CRIKEY MEDIA PTY LTD (ACN 091 304 059)	Defendants
- and -
STEPHEN MAYNE

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 October 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Price v Crikey Media Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 392

---

Practice and Procedure - Contempt of Court - Publications by litigant tending to interfere with the due administration of justice - Amendment of contempt summons - Whether sufficient particularity of each count.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms G.L. Schoff	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Defendants	Mr R.W. McGarvie with Mr J.D. Catlin	Holding Redlich

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Stephen William Price, has, on 19 December 2000, brought a proceeding in this court against the defendants, Crikey Media Pty Ltd and Stephen Mayne, seeking damages for defamation. The publication of the defamatory words is alleged to have taken place on 4 December 2000 on the Internet by the first Defendant.

Following the issue of the writ, six further publications are alleged to have taken place on various dates between 31 December 2000 and 5 February 2001 by or at the instigation of one or other or both of the defendants. Following these six publications, four of them were introduced by the plaintiff into the defamation proceeding by amendment to the statement of claim made on 23 February 2001, in support of a claim for aggravated damages, and in the reply dated 2 May 2001, to rebut the defence of qualified privilege.

Meantime, before either of those pleadings were filed, the plaintiff by summons filed on 14 February 2001 brought an application against the defendants seeking orders that they be punished for contempt of court inasmuch as these six further publications were an interference with the court process.

That summons was met by a summons filed on 23 March 2001 on behalf of the defendants seeking to dismiss or strike out what I will call the contempt application on the ground of duplicity. It is this strike out application which has ultimately found its way before me.

As things unravelled in the course of the debate today, the ground has shifted in two respects. First, the contempt application has been overtaken by a proposed amended contempt summons filed on 19 June 2001 which contains more information than was found in the original contempt summons. As a consequence the defendants' strike out application presently before me became transformed into an opposition by them to an application by the plaintiff to amend his contempt summons in terms of the proposal. Much the same issues, however, were raised because the basis of this opposition was that this proposed amended summons was bad in form for the same reason.

Second, the issue from the defendants' point of view also moved a little because, although the application which it brought…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Price v Crikey Media Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSC 392
Decision Date: 4 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Price v Crikey Media Pty Ltd was presented, where the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant in contempt of court. The crux of the dispute was the defendant's publication of articles that allegedly interfered with the proper administration of justice. The plaintiff sought to amend the initial contempt summons to include additional counts pertaining to other published articles, which the defendant contested on the basis of insufficient particularity.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the amended summons contained sufficient particularity to adequately inform the defendant of the specific conduct alleged to constitute contempt. The court had to determine whether the amendments provided the defendant with a clear and concise understanding of the allegations against them, enabling a proper defence to be mounted. This required an examination of the specific language used in the amended summons and whether it was sufficiently detailed to meet the legal standards for particularity in contempt proceedings.

The court found that the amended summons did not provide the required level of particularity. It held that the amendments did not clearly and concisely identify the specific articles or statements that were alleged to constitute contempt, and thus failed to inform the defendant adequately of the conduct in question. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to amend the summons, as the lack of particularity rendered the amendments insufficient. As a result, the defendant was not required to respond to the additional allegations.

No final orders were made regarding the merits of the contempt allegations, as the court's decision was solely focused on the issue of particularity in the amended summons. The case highlights the importance of clear and specific allegations in legal proceedings to ensure due process and fairness to all parties involved.

Orders