PW -v- MS [No 3] [2014] WASC 202

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 202
Case No:	CIV:1026/2011	Heard:	7-11 OCTOBER 2013
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	10/06/14
No of pages:	25	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Actions dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PW MS SS
Catchwords:	Tort Malicious falsehood Defendants published false statements about the plaintiff Statements published to a third person False statements published maliciously Plaintiff did not suffer actual damage as a result of the statements
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Ajinomoto Sweeteners SAS v Asda Stores Ltd (2011) QB 497 Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Limited (1979) 143 CLR 134 Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Limited v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388 Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158 Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 177 Williams v Smith [2012] WASC 371

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : PW -v- MS [No 3] [2014] WASC 202 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 7-11 OCTOBER 2013 DELIVERED : 10 JUNE 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1026 of 2011 BETWEEN : PW

Plaintiff

AND

Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 1027 of 2011 BETWEEN : PW

Plaintiff

AND

Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Malicious falsehood - Defendants published false statements about the plaintiff - Statements published to a third person - False statements published maliciously - Plaintiff did not suffer actual damage as a result of the statements

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Actions dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 1026 of 2011

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

CIV 1027 of 2011

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

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

Ajinomoto Sweeteners SAS v Asda Stores Ltd (2011) QB 497
Hughes v National Trustees, Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Limited (1979) 143 CLR 134
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Limited v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158
Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 177
Williams v Smith [2012] WASC 371

1 LE MIERE J: The plaintiff, PW, is the father of a child called P and the former de facto husband of the defendant in CIV 1026 of 2011 who is the mother of P and who I will refer to as M. The defendant in CIV 1027 of 2011, who I will refer to as S, is the mother of M and grandmother of P.

2 In CIV 1026 PW alleges that M maliciously made false statements about him to Dr T, P and doctors at the ** Health Campus to the effect that he was sexually and physically abusing and neglecting P. PW alleges that Dr T republished the false statements to him (PW) and to his…

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 PW v MS (No 3)

Details

AGLC: PW v MS (No 3) [2014] WASC 202
Case: [2014] WASC 202
Decision Date: 10 JUNE 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PW v MS (No 3) was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, PW, alleged that the defendants, MS, published false statements about them to a third party. PW sought damages for malicious falsehood, claiming that the statements were published maliciously without any basis in fact and that this resulted in harm, albeit not quantifiable in monetary terms. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that the statements were not false or malicious, and that any harm caused was not actionable.

The court was required to determine whether the defendants' statements were indeed false and malicious, and if so, whether PW was entitled to damages despite not being able to prove actual financial loss. The court had to consider the elements required to establish a claim for malicious falsehood, including the publication of false statements, the absence of a lawful and honest belief in their truth, and the presence of malice. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the lack of quantifiable financial damage precluded a claim for malicious falsehood.

The court found that the statements made by the defendants were false and were indeed published maliciously. However, the court also held that for a claim of malicious falsehood to succeed, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered actual damage as a result of the false statements. Given that PW could not provide evidence of any financial loss or other quantifiable harm, the court concluded that PW was not entitled to damages. The court dismissed the actions brought by PW, finding that while the defendants' conduct was improper, it did not give rise to a cause of action in malicious falsehood without accompanying actual damage.

Orders

Orders of the court

Actions dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.