Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd

Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd

Case [1999] WASC 264 16 December 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

TAYLOR -v- NETWORK TEN (PERTH) PTY LTD [1999] WASC 264

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 264
Case No:	CIV:1941/1999	Heard:	18 NOVEMBER 1999
Coram:	STEYTLER J	Delivered:	16/12/99
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Paragraph 11(b) of statement of claim struck out with liberty to amendApplication otherwise dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	ARTHUR TAYLOR NETWORK TEN (PERTH) PTY LTD (ACN 009 108 614)
Catchwords:	Defamation Identification of person said to be defamed Whether statement about class or group is defamatory of member of that class or group Plaintiff member of city council Defamation Application to strike out statement of claim Turns on own facts Defamation Damages Aggravated and exemplary damages Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225 Bjelke-Peterson v Warburton [1987] 2 Qd R 465 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 Coloca v BP Australia Ltd [1992] 2 VR 441 Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 WLR 688 Foxcroft v Lacey (1614) Hobart 89 Gardiner v Ray [1999] WASC 140 Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltdv City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440 Knupfer v London Express Newspaper [1944] AC 116 McKay v Southam Co Ltd (1956) 1 DLR (2d 1) McPhail v MacLeod (1895) 3 SLT 91 Morris v Sanders Universal Products [1954] 1 WLR 67 Oracle International Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Steytler J); Library No 970696; 11 December 1997 Ortenburg v Plamondon (1914) 24 Quebec KB 69 Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1984] QB 670 Sanders v Cell (1997) 73 FCR 569 Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289 Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd [1991] 1 QB 153 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58 Whitfield v De Lauret & Co (1920) 29 CLR 71 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers Union (Miscellaneous Workers Division) (WA Branch) v Mulligan (1996) 15 WAR 385 Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 2 NSWLR 474 David Syme & Co v Canavan (1918) 25 CLR 234 Eastwood v Holmes (1858) 175 ER 758 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 410 Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1973) 22 FLR 181 Gumina v Williams [No 1] (1990) 3 WAR 342 Humphries v TWT (1993) 113 FLR 422 John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Leslie v Mirror Newspapers (1971) 125 CLR 332 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485 Metaxas v West Australian Newspapers Ltd, unreported; SCt…

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 Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd [1999] WASC 264
Case: [1999] WASC 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd, heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involved a defamation claim brought by Arthur Taylor, a former councillor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Wanneroo. Taylor sued the defendant, Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd, a television broadcaster, over a news segment broadcast on 1 July 1999. The broadcast allegedly defamed Taylor by implying that he was dismissed from his position for misconduct, leading to significant personal and professional harm. The central legal issues revolved around whether the broadcast was capable of identifying Taylor, whether the defamatory imputations were reasonably capable of arising, and whether the plaintiff could claim aggravated and exemplary damages.

The court found that the broadcast, while not naming Taylor explicitly, could be understood to refer to him by those who knew of his position as a former councillor and Deputy Mayor. This identification was deemed sufficient for the purposes of the defamation claim. Regarding the defamatory imputations, the court held that the broadcast could be reasonably understood to imply that all members of the former City of Wanneroo council were dismissed for good cause and misconduct, which included Taylor. The court also found that the claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were adequately pleaded, as the plaintiff detailed the defendant's failure to verify facts before publication and its refusal to apologize, which could be seen as aggravating the defamation and warranting exemplary damages.

Ultimately, the court decided to strike out a specific part of the statement of claim with liberty to amend but dismissed the defendant's application otherwise. This decision allowed Taylor to proceed with his defamation claim, subject to amending the struck-out portion of his statement of claim.

Orders