QUIGLEY -v- WALLACE [2015] WASC 479

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 479
Case No:	CIV:1927/2015	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	14/12/15
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BARRY QUIGLEY MATTHEW QUIGLEY STEPHEN WALLACE
Catchwords:	Defamation Interlocutory strikeout application Popular/False innuendos attacked as unarguable Pleading embarrassment Natural and ordinary meanings Electronic publication on web site Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 254 Maisel v Financial Times Ltd [1915] 3 KB 336 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : QUIGLEY -v- WALLACE [2015] WASC 479 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 14 DECEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1927 of 2015 BETWEEN : BARRY QUIGLEY

First Plaintiff

MATTHEW QUIGLEY

Second Plaintiff

AND

STEPHEN WALLACE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Interlocutory strikeout application - Popular/False innuendos attacked as unarguable - Pleading embarrassment - Natural and ordinary meanings - Electronic publication on web site - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : On the papers

Second Plaintiff : On the papers

Defendant : On the papers

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : GG Legal

Second Plaintiff : GG Legal

Defendant : Mossensons

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

Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 254
Maisel v Financial Times Ltd [1915] 3 KB 336
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

1 KENNETH MARTIN J: I am dealing in this defamation action with the application of the defendant to strike out parts of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim (ASOC) of 6 October 2015. The application is brought upon the basis that the impugned paragraphs either fail to disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action under RSC O 20 r 19(1)(a) or, alternatively, are embarrassing under RSC O 20 r 19(1)(c) in a pleadings sense, to the extent that they should be struck out.

2 By agreement of the parties under directions which I have made concerning this interlocutory strikeout application, the matter has been dealt with on the papers, in accordance with the parties' written submissions. To that end, I hold the written outline of submissions of the defendant, filed 6 November 2015. Those written submissions are responded to by the plaintiffs' outline in opposition dated 10 November 2015.

3 In order to evaluate the challenges which have been put against the plaintiffs' pleading, it is necessary to identify the words complained of, and then, the imputations which the plaintiffs contend arise as the natural and ordinary (defamatory) meaning of those words.

4 The plaintiffs, who are father and son, contend for a number of imputations defamatory against both of them, arising out of the alleged publication over the internet some time during or prior to January 2015 of words which are referred to as the 'Post'.

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 Quigley v Wallace 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: [2015] WASC 479
Decision Date: 14 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quigley v Wallace was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria which involved a dispute over defamation claims. The plaintiff, Quigley, sought to sue the defendant, Wallace, over defamatory statements published on a website. Quigley alleged that Wallace's words, which were published electronically, had a defamatory meaning that was both obvious and harmful to Quigley's reputation. The case required the court to determine whether the statements made by Wallace were indeed defamatory and, if so, whether they were of such a nature that they warranted legal action. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the statements had a natural and ordinary meaning that was defamatory, and if so, whether the publication on a website was sufficient to constitute defamation. The court also needed to decide whether the defamatory statements constituted either a popular or false innuendo, as these were claimed to be unarguable.

The court's reasoning focused on the nature and meaning of the published statements. The judge examined the context in which the words were used, the audience to whom they were directed, and the potential impact on Quigley's reputation. The judge considered whether the statements had a defamatory meaning that was plain and obvious to an ordinary reader. The court also delved into the concept of popular and false innuendos, examining whether these claims were inherently implausible or required further evidence to be proven. The judge concluded that the statements did not carry the defamatory meanings alleged by Quigley and that the claims of innuendo were not sufficiently arguable. Consequently, the court found that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law and dismissed the application for an interlocutory strikeout.

The dismissal of the application meant that the defamation claims could not proceed further without amendment. The court held that the statements at issue did not meet the threshold of being defamatory under the law and that the claims of innuendo were not substantiated. The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed, and no further action could be taken on the defamation claims without addressing the deficiencies identified by the judge. This decision underscores the importance of the natural and ordinary meaning of words in defamation cases and the stringent requirements for proving innuendos.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.