SARACENI -v- MENTHA [2013] WASC 95
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 95 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2734/2012 | 12 FEBRUARY 2013 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 26/03/13 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Two plaintiff imputations disallowed. Leave to replead | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LUKE SARACENI MARK MENTHA SCOTT LANGDON KORDAMENTHA PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Defamation strike out attacks on the plaintiff's imputations Justification pleaded Alternative imputations Imputation as passive imputation as to 'lied' Statutory defence of honest opinion Leave to replead |
Legislation: | Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 31(1), s 31(5) |
Case References: | Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60 Gumina v Williams [No 1] (1990) 3 WAR 342 Heytsbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Monte v Mirror Newspapers [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott [2008] WASCA 172 Wong v Aripin [2011] WASC 174 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
MARK MENTHA
First defendant
SCOTT LANGDON
Second defendant
KORDAMENTHA PTY LTD
Third defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation strike out attacks on the plaintiff's imputations - Justification pleaded - Alternative imputations - Imputation as passive imputation as to 'lied' - Statutory defence of honest opinion - Leave to replead
Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 31(1), s 31(5)
(Page 2)
Result:
Two plaintiff imputations disallowed.
Leave to replead
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett & Ms J Di Lena
First defendant : Mr S A O'Meara SC & Ms K Banks-Smith
Second defendant : Mr S A O'Meara SC & Ms K Banks-Smith
Third defendant : Mr S A O'Meara SC & Ms K Banks-Smith
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Bennett + Co
First defendant : Norton Rose Australia
Second defendant : Norton Rose Australia
Third defendant : Norton Rose Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60
Gumina v Williams [No 1] (1990) 3 WAR 342
Heytsbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Monte v Mirror Newspapers [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott [2008] WASCA 172
Wong v Aripin [2011] WASC 174
(Page 3)
1 KENNETH MARTIN J: The plaintiff applies to strike out various paragraphs in the amended defence of the defendants (dated 30 December 2012), put in defence against plaintiff's defamatory imputations. The plaintiff says that these various paragraphs fail to disclose a reasonably arguable defence, or alternatively, that the paragraphs are embarrassing. Relevantly, I am concerned with the defendants' defences of justification, asserted truth of certain alternate imputations (Polly Peck defences) and a statutory defence of honest opinion, invoking s 31(1) of…
Continue reading Saraceni v Mentha
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- SARACENI -v- MENTHA [2013] WASC 95
- Case
- [2013] WASC 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Saraceni v Mentha, the High Court heard a case involving allegations of defamation. The plaintiff, Mr Saraceni, sought to establish that the defendant, Mr Mentha, had defamed him through various statements made in public. The nature of the dispute centred on the specific imputations made by the defendant that were alleged to have tarnished Mr Saraceni's reputation. The court was tasked with determining whether these imputations were indeed defamatory and if the defendant could justify them under the law. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which holds the ultimate jurisdiction in such matters.
The legal issues before the court included the identification of the specific imputations made by the defendant that were defamatory, the assessment of the justification defence, and the applicability of the statutory defence of honest opinion. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to replead if certain imputations were disallowed. The court needed to carefully analyse each imputation to determine its defamatory nature and whether any of the defences available to the defendant could be successfully pleaded.
The court found that two of the imputations made by the defendant were not defamatory and therefore disallowed them. Regarding the remaining imputations, the court determined that while some could be justified, others required further substantiation. The court also considered the statutory defence of honest opinion, ruling that it was not applicable in this case. Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff leave to replead, allowing him to amend his statement of claim to address the disallowed imputations and clarify the remaining ones. This decision enabled the plaintiff to pursue his case with a more precise focus on the defamatory statements.
The final orders of the court disallowed two of the plaintiff's imputations and granted leave to replead for the remaining imputations. This decision allowed Mr Saraceni to refine his claims and proceed with the litigation more effectively. The court's ruling provided clarity on the nature of the defamatory statements and the legal defences available, setting the stage for further proceedings in the case.
The legal issues before the court included the identification of the specific imputations made by the defendant that were defamatory, the assessment of the justification defence, and the applicability of the statutory defence of honest opinion. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to replead if certain imputations were disallowed. The court needed to carefully analyse each imputation to determine its defamatory nature and whether any of the defences available to the defendant could be successfully pleaded.
The court found that two of the imputations made by the defendant were not defamatory and therefore disallowed them. Regarding the remaining imputations, the court determined that while some could be justified, others required further substantiation. The court also considered the statutory defence of honest opinion, ruling that it was not applicable in this case. Ultimately, the court granted the plaintiff leave to replead, allowing him to amend his statement of claim to address the disallowed imputations and clarify the remaining ones. This decision enabled the plaintiff to pursue his case with a more precise focus on the defamatory statements.
The final orders of the court disallowed two of the plaintiff's imputations and granted leave to replead for the remaining imputations. This decision allowed Mr Saraceni to refine his claims and proceed with the litigation more effectively. The court's ruling provided clarity on the nature of the defamatory statements and the legal defences available, setting the stage for further proceedings in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Two plaintiff imputations disallowed.
Leave to replead
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.