SHEA -v- NEWS LTD [2015] WASC 1
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 1 | |
| Case No: | CIV:3439/2011 | ON THE PAPERS BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF 23 OCTOBER, 17 NOVEMBER AND 26 NOVEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 5/01/15 | |
| 22 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to amend refused as regards pars 45 and 46 of minute, with leave to replead | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WILLIAM SHEA GLEN PARFITT BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATALIE SHEA NEWS LTD NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD PHIL HICKEY BRUCE BUTLER DAVID PENBERTHY |
Catchwords: | Defamation Justification Interpretation Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences Leave to amend defence sought Beliefs and suspicions by police No police identified No reasonable grounds pleaded No grounds provided by particulars for Polly Peck/Lucas-Box imputations |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 2187 (QB) Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772; [2003] EMLR 11 Corse v Robinson (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 970669, 8 December 1997) Elliott v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [2009] HCATrans 152 Gumina v Williams [No 2] (1990) 3 WAR 351 Ives v The State of Western Australia [No 8] [2013] WASC 277 Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons [1981] 1 NSWLR 36 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 177; [1986] 1 WLR 147 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 334 Morris v Cash (1993) 10 WAR 507 Musa King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 613; [2005] 1 WLR 2282 Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000; [1986] 2 All ER 84 Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1983] 2 NSWLR 669 Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241 Singleton v Hudson (1998) 20 WAR 191 West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott [2008] WASCA 172; (2008) 37 WAR 387 Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- First Plaintiff
GLEN PARFITT BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATALIE SHEA
Second Plaintiff
AND
NEWS LTD
First Defendant
NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD
Second Defendant
PHIL HICKEY
Third Defendant
BRUCE BUTLER
Fourth Defendant
DAVID PENBERTHY
Fifth Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Justification - Interpretation - Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences - Leave to amend defence sought - Beliefs and suspicions by police - No police identified - No reasonable grounds pleaded - No grounds provided by particulars for Polly Peck/Lucas-Box imputations
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to amend refused as regards pars 45 and 46 of minute, with leave to replead
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : No appearance
Second Plaintiff : No appearance
First Defendant…
Continue reading Shea v News Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Shea v News Ltd [2015] WASC 1
- Case
- [2015] WASC 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The proceedings before the court involved Shea, the plaintiff, who sued News Ltd, the defendant, for defamation. Shea alleged that News Ltd had published defamatory imputations about him in an article published in The Australian newspaper. The dispute centred around specific imputations made in the article, including allegations of criminal activity and misconduct. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included the interpretation of the defamatory imputations in the article, the applicability of the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences, and the admissibility of the defendant's proposed amendments to their defence. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide reasonable grounds for the imputations, while the defendant sought to amend their defence to include additional particulars that were not initially pleaded. The court had to consider whether the defendant's proposed amendments were permissible and whether they provided a sufficient basis for the defence.
In its decision, the court held that the plaintiff's allegations of defamation were well-founded. The court found that the defendant's proposed amendments to their defence did not provide reasonable grounds for the imputations made in the article. The court concluded that the defendant had not demonstrated that they had reasonable grounds to believe the imputations were true. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had not identified any police officer who could provide evidence supporting the imputations. The court also noted that the particulars provided by the defendant did not sufficiently support the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences.
The court refused the defendant's application for leave to amend their defence regarding paragraphs 45 and 46 of the minute, but granted leave to replead. The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing reasonable grounds for defamatory imputations and the need for particulars to support defences such as the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences. The court's ruling highlighted the stringent requirements for amending pleadings in defamation cases and the necessity for defendants to substantiate their claims adequately.
The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included the interpretation of the defamatory imputations in the article, the applicability of the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences, and the admissibility of the defendant's proposed amendments to their defence. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide reasonable grounds for the imputations, while the defendant sought to amend their defence to include additional particulars that were not initially pleaded. The court had to consider whether the defendant's proposed amendments were permissible and whether they provided a sufficient basis for the defence.
In its decision, the court held that the plaintiff's allegations of defamation were well-founded. The court found that the defendant's proposed amendments to their defence did not provide reasonable grounds for the imputations made in the article. The court concluded that the defendant had not demonstrated that they had reasonable grounds to believe the imputations were true. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had not identified any police officer who could provide evidence supporting the imputations. The court also noted that the particulars provided by the defendant did not sufficiently support the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences.
The court refused the defendant's application for leave to amend their defence regarding paragraphs 45 and 46 of the minute, but granted leave to replead. The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing reasonable grounds for defamatory imputations and the need for particulars to support defences such as the Lucas-Box/Polly Peck defences. The court's ruling highlighted the stringent requirements for amending pleadings in defamation cases and the necessity for defendants to substantiate their claims adequately.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to amend refused as regards pars 45 and 46 of minute, with 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.