Legal Research
Cases
Wallis & Ors v Wallis

Wallis & Ors v Wallis

Case [2001] WASC 134 31 May 2001

Defamation

Jurisdiction

Pleadings

Alternative Meanings in Defamation

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

WALLIS & ORS -v- WALLIS [2001] WASC 134

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 134
Case No:	CIV:1207/1998	Heard:	23 APRIL 2001
Coram:	STEYTLER J	Delivered:	31/05/01
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to amend defence disallowed
PDF Version

Parties:	ARTHUR WILLIAM WALLIS JOHN CARRUTHERS RAY BRUCE JACKSON TIMOTHY DAVID WALLIS TERRENCE ARTHUR JACKSON KIMBERLEY BRIAN RAY JOHN ROBERT WALLIS
Catchwords:	Defamation Practice and procedure Pleadings Application to further reamend defence Availability of Polly Peck defence Whether defendant entitled to plead and justify an alternative imputation Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc (2000) Aust Torts R 81-548 Brown v Marron [2001] WASC 100 Carrey v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1999] 1 VR 875 Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) A Def R 53-055 Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542 Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351 Jackson v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 121 Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 147 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Bremridge v Latimer (1864) 12 WR 878 Brown v Marron, unreported; SCt of WA (Steytler J); Library No 980686; 1 December 1998 Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 24 ALR 118 Ray v Wallis [1999] WASC 216 Robinson v Laws [2000] QSC 82 Woodger v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 106 FLR 183 Zierenberg v Labouchere [1893] 2 QB 183

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WALLIS & ORS -v- WALLIS [2001] WASC 134 CORAM : STEYTLER J HEARD : 23 APRIL 2001 DELIVERED : 31 MAY 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 1207 of 1998 BETWEEN : ARTHUR WILLIAM WALLIS

JOHN CARRUTHERS RAY

BRUCE JACKSON

TIMOTHY DAVID WALLIS

TERRENCE ARTHUR JACKSON

KIMBERLEY BRIAN RAY

Plaintiffs

AND

JOHN ROBERT WALLIS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Application to further reamend defence - Availability of Polly Peck defence - Whether defendant entitled to plead and justify an alternative imputation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application to amend defence disallowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr P J Gethin

Defendant : Mr J G Hanly

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Patrick Gethin & Co

Defendant : Hotchkin Hanly

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

Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc (2000) Aust Torts R 81-548
Brown v Marron [2001] WASC 100
Carrey v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [1999] 1 VR 875
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
David Syme & Co Ltd v Hore-Lacy (2000) A Def R 53-055
Gascoine v McGinty (1995) 14 WAR 542
Gumina v Williams (No 2) (1990) 3 WAR 351
Jackson v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd…

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 Wallis & Ors v Wallis

Details

AGLC: Wallis & Ors v Wallis [2001] WASC 134
Case: [2001] WASC 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, John Robert Wallis, sought to further amend his defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by six plaintiffs, Arthur William Wallis, John Carruthers Ray, Bruce Jackson, Timothy David Wallis, Terence Arthur Jackson, and Kimberley Brian Ray. The plaintiffs, all members of the "fellowship of Christian believers known as the Brethren," alleged that the defendant defamed them through a letter published in February 1998. The plaintiffs claimed that the letter implied they had engaged in immoral activities with women and young girls, which they sought to prove as defamatory. The defendant sought to amend his defence to include alternative imputations, arguing that the letter referred to the Brethren's practice of disassociating from members who violate their rules and the community's perception of such practices.

The court considered whether the defendant could plead alternative imputations different from those alleged by the plaintiffs. The court found that while the defendant could plead alternative meanings, they had to be similar to the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs and had to identify a defamatory act or condition. The court held that the proposed alternative imputations were either not defamatory or substantially different from the imputations pleaded by the plaintiffs. The alternative imputations did not identify specific defamatory acts or conditions attributed to the plaintiffs, thus failing to meet the requirements of pleading a proper defence.

The court disallowed the defendant's application to further amend his defence, stating that the proposed alternative imputations were not permissible as they did not sufficiently identify defamatory acts or conditions. The court also noted that the particulars provided did not adequately support the proposed alternative imputations. Consequently, the defendant was not allowed to plead the alternative imputations, and the application was dismissed.

Orders