SHAVE -v- WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 172

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 172
Case No:	CIV:1285/2000	Heard:	23 JUNE 2000
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	29/06/00
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to strike out dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS JAMES SHAVE WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (ACN 008 667 632) JAMES ANDREW McGINTY
Catchwords:	Defamation Pleadings Imputation of criminal offence Whether imputations clearly untenable or manifestly groundless Understanding of ordinary reasonable reader
Legislation:	Finance Brokers Control Act Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 19
Case References:	Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 679 Foord v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW (Hunt J); No 2045 of 1986; 27 February 1987 Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351 Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Leslie v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1971) 125 CLR 332 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Mirror Newpapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Abboud, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960710; 12 September 1996 Ron Hodgson (Trading) Pty Ltd v Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 472 Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 Singleton v Hudson (1998) 20 WAR 191 Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289 Taylor v Jecks (1994) 10 WAR 309 Armitage v Double Bay Newspapers Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of NSW; No 13056; 26 September 1991 Australian Consolidated Press v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 Emerson v Walker & Ors [1999] WASC 265 Metaxas v West Australian Newspapers Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970411; 18 August 1997 Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1994] QB 670 Ronci v Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported SCt of WA; Library No 960340; 21 June 1996 Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SHAVE -v- WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 172 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 23 JUNE 2000 DELIVERED : 29 JUNE 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1285 of 2000 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS JAMES SHAVE

Plaintiff

AND

WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (ACN 008 667 632)

First Defendant

JAMES ANDREW McGINTY

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Pleadings - Imputation of criminal offence - Whether imputations clearly untenable or manifestly groundless - Understanding of ordinary reasonable reader

Legislation:

Finance Brokers Control Act

Rules of the Supreme Court1971, O 20 r 19

(Page 2)

Result:

Application to strike out dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D M Stone

First Defendant : Ms C Galati

Second Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Williams & Hughes

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 Shave v West Australian Newspapers 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: [2000] WASC 172
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shave v West Australian Newspapers Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Shave, sought to sue the defendant, West Australian Newspapers Ltd, for defamation. The newspaper had published an article containing imputations that Shave had committed a serious criminal offence. Shave argued that the imputations were defamatory, false, and had caused damage to his reputation. The defendant sought to have the pleadings struck out, arguing that the imputations were clearly untenable or manifestly groundless.

The legal issues before the court were whether the imputations were clearly untenable or manifestly groundless and whether an ordinary reasonable reader would understand the imputations in the context of the article. The court had to consider the standard of proof required for such an application and the relevant tests for determining whether imputations are clearly untenable or manifestly groundless.

The court dismissed the application to strike out. It held that the standard of proof for an application to strike out was high and that the imputations were not clearly untenable or manifestly groundless. The court found that an ordinary reasonable reader would understand the imputations in the context of the article and that the imputations were not so outrageous that no sensible person could have held them. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for defamation and that the matter should proceed to trial.

The court did not make any final orders in this case, as it was an application to strike out the pleadings. The case will proceed to trial to determine whether the defendant is liable for defamation and, if so, the amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to receive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to strike out 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.