ROBINSON -v- QUINLIVAN & ORS [2005] WASC 196
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASC 196 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1406/2005 | 17 AUGUST 2005 | |
| Coram: | MASTER NEWNES | 2/09/05 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Statement of claim struck out in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
LYNETTE PATRICIA QUINLIVAN
First Defendant
THE WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED (ACN 008 667 632)
Second Defendant
SEAN COWAN
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Application to strike out imputation - Whether capable of being conveyed - Plea of exemplary damages - Whether matters pleaded capable of giving rise to claim for exemplary damages - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Statement of claim struck out in part
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr S M Davies
First Defendant : Mr S J Lemonis
Second Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms A H Pearce
Third Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms A H Pearce
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Arns & Associates
First Defendant : Fairweather & Lemonis
Second Defendant : Edwards Wallace
Third Defendant : Edwards Wallace
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cohen v Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home & Ors [2003] NSWSC 502
Crestland Investments…
Continue reading Robinson v Quinlivan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Robinson v Quinlivan [2005] WASC 196
- Case
- [2005] WASC 196
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Robinson v Quinlivan, the plaintiff, Lee Kerryn Robinson, brought a defamation action against the defendants, Lynette Patricia Quinlivan, The West Australian Newspapers Limited, and Sean Cowan. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants published defamatory statements about him in an article in The West Australian. The defendants applied to strike out certain parts of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim, arguing that the defamatory imputations were not capable of being conveyed by the words complained of and that the plaintiff's claim for exemplary damages was not supported by the facts pleaded. The court found that the imputation that the plaintiff had been dishonest in giving his evidence at trial was not capable of being conveyed by the words complained of. The court also held that the plaintiff's claim for exemplary damages was not supported by the facts pleaded, as the defendants' conduct did not amount to a contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court struck out the relevant parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim, with leave to the plaintiff to replead. The court will hear the parties on the issue of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.