Legal Research
Cases
Strasberg v Westfield Ltd

Strasberg v Westfield Ltd

Case [2002] NSWSC 340 26 April 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Strasberg v Westfield Ltd [2002] NSWSC 340

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20867 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 26 April 2002

PARTIES :

MARIE-ANN STRASBERG
(Plaintiff)
v
WESTFIELD LTD t/a WESTFIELD HORNSBY
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
C Evatt
(Plaintiff)
R McHugh
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Ward Maxwell & Co
(Plaintiff)
Speed and Stracey
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Oral publications - imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance - false imprisonment - pleading requirements

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Telvision Services v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Boyd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1980) 2 NSWLR 449
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1988) 193 CLR 519
Cowell v Corrective Services Commission (1988) 13 NSWLR 714
Drummoyne Municipal Council v The Australian Broadcasting Commission (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors [2002] NSWCA 41
Jackson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
Jones v Skelton (1963) 63 SR(NSW) 644
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Lippl v Haines (1989) 18 NSWLR 620
McCormick v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485
Mirror Newspapers Limited v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293
Moore v Australian Broadcasting Commision (1985) A Def R 50010
Nugawela v Crampton, unreported, Levine J, 31 January 1996 and 6 February 1996
Singleton v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, unreported, Hunt J, 20 February 1980
Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co (1907) 7 SR(NSW) 488
Williams v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd, unreported,Levine J, 3 December 1993

DECISION: See paragraph 47

- 1 -

djl: 1

[2002] NSWSC 340

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

DEFAMATION list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 26 APRIL 2002

20867 OF 2001

MARIE-ANN STRASBERG
(Plaintiff)

v

WESTFIELD LIMITED t/a WESTFIELD HORNSBY
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Oral publications – imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance – false imprisonment – pleading requirements)

1 The plaintiff sues in respect of two oral publications on 27 September 2001 at the Hornsby Westfield Shopping Centre, and a written publication dated 2 October 2001.

2 By reference to a proposed Amended Statement of Claim the plaintiff seks leave to file, and in general terms, it would appear that on or about 27 September 2001 the plaintiff was at the Hornsby Westfield Shopping Centre and an “incident” occurred.

3 The first oral publication sued upon is in the following words attributed to one Rebecca Remoundis:

“There have been complaints about you. You are dressed in a provocative manner. You are dressed inappropriately. It is offensive. Your skirt is too short”.

4 From the Particulars of Publication it can be understood that the plaintiff is alleging that the words were spoken to her in a loud and audible voice in the hearing and/or sight of many other shoppers and persons present or passing by. The names or identity of such shoppers and passers by are not known to the plaintiff. It is alleged that while the words were spoken by…

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.

Continue reading Strasberg v Westfield Ltd

Details

AGLC: Strasberg v Westfield Ltd [2002] NSWSC 340
Case: [2002] NSWSC 340
Decision Date: 26 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Strasberg v Westfield Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Strasberg, and the defendant, Westfield Ltd. Mr Strasberg claimed that he was falsely imprisoned by employees of Westfield Ltd at one of their shopping centres. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim of false imprisonment was properly pleaded in accordance with the legal requirements. The plaintiff also contended that oral publications made by the defendant's employees constituted imputations regarding his capacity and form, which were different in substance.

The court examined the pleadings to determine whether they sufficiently disclosed a cause of action for false imprisonment. The plaintiff argued that the oral publications made by the defendant's employees were defamatory, amounting to imputations about his character in terms of capacity and form. The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that the plaintiff's pleadings did not meet the necessary standards and that the oral publications were not defamatory as they did not convey a meaning that was different in substance. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's pleadings were adequate and whether the oral publications amounted to defamatory imputations.

The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings did not adequately disclose a cause of action for false imprisonment, as they did not provide sufficient details to establish the necessary elements of the claim. Furthermore, the court found that the oral publications did not amount to defamatory imputations because they did not convey a meaning that was different in substance. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated by the pleadings and that the oral publications did not meet the criteria for defamation. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment and defamation were dismissed. The court found that the pleadings did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action and that the oral publications did not amount to defamatory imputations. The defendant's motion for dismissal was therefore granted.

Orders