SHEA -v- NEWS LTD [No 2] [2016] WASC 146

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 146
Case No:	CIV:3439/2011	Heard:	8 APRIL 2016
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	12/05/16
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Evidentiary objections determined provisionally
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WILLIAM SHEA GLEN PARFITT NEWS LTD NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD PHIL HICKEY DAVID PENBERTHY
Catchwords:	Defamation Directions pre-trial Potential jury trial Child plaintiffs Infant reputations Action commenced by next friend Witness statements exchanged Evidence as to good reputations of children Objection to admissibility Form objection foreshadowed Evidence as to involvement in junior AFL
Legislation:	Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Case References:	AB v Bragg Communications Inc [2012] SCC 46; [2012] 2 SCR 567 Anderson v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (1986) 5 NSWLR 735 Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 2 NSWLR 474 Cornwell v Myskow [1987] 1 WLR 630 Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1119 Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd [No 5] [2016] WASC 67 O'Hagan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 302; (2001) 53 NSWLR 89 Plato Films Ltd v Spiedel [1961] AC 1090 Shea v News Ltd [2015] WASC 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SHEA -v- NEWS LTD [No 2] [2016] WASC 146 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 8 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 3439 of 2011 BETWEEN : WILLIAM SHEA

First Plaintiff

GLEN PARFITT

Second Plaintiff

AND

NEWS LTD

First Defendant

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

Second Defendant

PHIL HICKEY

Third Defendant

DAVID PENBERTHY

Fifth Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Directions pre-trial - Potential jury trial - Child plaintiffs - Infant reputations - Action commenced by next friend - Witness statements exchanged - Evidence as to good reputations of children - Objection to admissibility - Form objection foreshadowed - Evidence as to involvement in junior AFL

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Evidentiary objections determined provisionally

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr S M Davies SC & Ms A Derham

Second Plaintiff : Mr S M Davies SC & Ms A Derham

First Defendant : Mr T Blackburn SC

Second Defendant : Mr T Blackburn SC

Third Defendant : Mr T Blackburn SC

Fifth Defendant : Mr T Blackburn SC

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : DLA Piper Australia

Second Plaintiff : DLA Piper Australia

First Defendant : Carmel Galati

Second Defendant : Carmel Galati

Third Defendant : Carmel Galati

Fifth Defendant : Carmel Galati

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AB v Bragg Communications Inc [2012] SCC 46; [2012] 2 SCR 567
Anderson v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (1986) 5 NSWLR 735
Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 2 NSWLR 474
Cornwell v Myskow [1987] 1 WLR 630
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1119
Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd [No 5] [2016] WASC 67
O'Hagan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 302; (2001)…

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 Shea v News Ltd (No 2) 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: [2016] WASC 146
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Shea, initiated proceedings against the defendant, News Ltd, in relation to an alleged defamation of their two minor children. The case was heard in the Federal Court, which had jurisdiction over the matter due to the cross-border nature of the publication. The plaintiffs sought to prove the good reputations of their children and had commenced the action through a next friend. Both parties had exchanged witness statements, and the plaintiffs planned to call expert evidence to demonstrate their children's good reputations. However, the defendant objected to the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that it was speculative and not directly relevant to the children's reputations.

The court was required to determine the admissibility of the evidence regarding the good reputations of the minor plaintiffs. This involved considering the form of the objection that had been foreshadowed and whether it adequately captured the basis for the challenge to the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the evidence about the children's involvement in junior Australian Football League (AFL) was relevant to their reputations and could be admitted.

The court found that the form of the evidentiary objection was sufficient to allow the plaintiffs to respond adequately. The court provisionally determined that evidence regarding the children's good reputations would be admitted, as it was relevant to the defamation claim. However, evidence about the children's involvement in junior AFL was deemed not directly relevant to their reputations and was excluded. The court provided provisional determinations on the evidentiary objections, leaving the final orders to be determined at a later stage in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Evidentiary objections determined provisionally

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.