Rayney v Pan MacMillan Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : RAYNEY -v- PAN MACMILLAN AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD [2014] WASC 129
CORAM : EDELMAN J
HEARD
:  8 APRIL 2014
DELIVERED 
:  10 APRIL 2014
FILE NO/S 
:  CIV 1587 of 2010
BETWEEN  : LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY

Plaintiff

AND

PAN MACMILLAN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

First Defendant

MALCOLM CRAIG BROWN

Second Defendant

ESTELLE BLACKBURN

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Strike out application - Defamation - Difference between inferences, implications, and imputations - Drawing of inferences upon inferences - Whether book chapter in book of essays needs to be read together with book introduction

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

[2014] WASC 129

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett
First Defendant : Mr R Anderson
Second Defendant : Mr R Anderson
Third Defendant : Mr R Anderson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett & Co
First Defendant : Ms C Galati
Second Defendant : Ms C Galati
Third Defendant : Ms C Galati

Cases referred to in judgment(s):

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Aquital Holdings Pty Ltd v Marlin Group Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 198
Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1251; [2001] EMLR 45
Boase v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 331
Buckeridge v Walter [2006] WASCA 22
DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd [1973] 1 QB 21

Fairworld Holdings Pty Ltd v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASC

136

Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 79 ALJR

1716

Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 175
Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2003] EWCA Civ 1694; [2004]

EMLR 6

John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic [2007] HCA 28; (2007) 230 CLR 291
Joyce v Palassis [No 4] [2008] WASC 45

[2014] WASC 129

Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Lib No

6414, 25 August 1986)

Kirika v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2002] WASCA 233
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Maher v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 254

Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 3; (1979) 141 CLR

632

Mustard v Woodside Energy Ltd [2012] WASC 461
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Warton [2002] NSWCA 377
Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94
Pullman v Hill [1891] 1 QB 524
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573

Slatyer v The Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd [1908] HCA 22; (1908) 6

CLR 1

Talbot & Olivier (A Firm) v Witcombe [2006] WASCA 87; (2006) 32 WAR

179

Texts cited:

Mullis A and Parkes R, Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th ed, 2013) Wigmore J, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Tillers P rev 1983)

[2014] WASC 129

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
The paragraphs that the defendants wish to strike out…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rayney v Pan MacMillan Australia 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
[2014] WASC 129
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that a chapter in a book of essays published by the defendant contained defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. The defendant applied to have the proceedings struck out on the basis that the statements in the book were not defamatory. The court had to determine whether the statements made in the book were defamatory and whether the court could draw inferences from the book chapter without considering the book's introduction.

The court considered whether the book chapter should be read in isolation or in conjunction with the book's introduction. The court noted that the book was a collection of essays, and the chapter in question was written by a different author than the introduction. The court held that the book chapter should be read in conjunction with the book's introduction as the introduction provided context for the chapter. The court also considered whether the statements in the book were defamatory and whether the court could draw inferences from the book chapter without considering the book's introduction. The court held that the statements in the book were not defamatory, and that the court could not draw inferences from the book chapter without considering the book's introduction.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the proceedings. The court held that the book chapter should be read in conjunction with the book's introduction, and that the statements in the book were not defamatory. The court held that the court could draw inferences from the book chapter only after considering the book's introduction. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious and that the proceedings should not be struck out. The defendant's application to strike out the proceedings was dismissed.

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.