Legal Research
Cases
Walter v Buckeridge

Walter v Buckeridge

Case [2005] WASC 112 3 June 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

WALTER -v- BUCKERIDGE & ANOR [2005] WASC 112

Link to Appeal :

[2006] WASCA 22

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 112
Case No:	CIV:2549/2003	Heard:	12 MAY 2005
Coram:	MASTER NEWNES	Delivered:	3/06/05
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to amend statement of claim granted Application to strike out refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JULIAN ALAN WALTER LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 736 005)
Catchwords:	Defamation Application to amend statement of claim Application by defendant to strike out pleaded imputation Whether imputation capable of being conveyed Whether embarrassing Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1211 Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663 Mortimer v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 612 Shave v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2001] WASC 197 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Waterhouse v Perkins, unreported, NSWSC (Levine J); 10 October 1996 West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Shave [2001] WASCA 216 Capital and Counties Bank v Henty (1880) 5 CPD 514 Lewis v Daily Telegraph; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph [1963] 1 QB 340 Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Abboud, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960710; 12 September 1996 Reynolds v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 90

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WALTER -v- BUCKERIDGE & ANOR [2005] WASC 112 CORAM : MASTER NEWNES HEARD : 12 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2549 of 2003 BETWEEN : JULIAN ALAN WALTER

Plaintiff

AND

LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE

First Defendant

BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 005 736 005)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to amend statement of claim - Application by defendant to strike out pleaded imputation - Whether imputation capable of being conveyed - Whether embarrassing - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application to amend statement of claim granted

Application to strike out refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R W Richardson

First Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms J L Johnson

Second Defendant : Mr W S Martin QC & Ms J L Johnson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Clayton Utz

First Defendant : Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Second Defendant : Mallesons Stephen Jaques

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

Berezovsky v Forbes Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1211
Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293
Monte v Mirror Newspapers 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 Walter v Buckeridge

Details

AGLC: Walter v Buckeridge [2005] WASC 112
Case: [2005] WASC 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Walter v Buckeridge, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was tasked with considering an application by the plaintiff, Julian Alan Walter, to amend the statement of claim to include a specific defamatory imputation in his defamation claim against Leonard Walter Buckeridge and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's application and sought to have the existing imputation struck out. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed amendment to the imputation would render it embarrassing, as well as whether the existing imputation was capable of being conveyed by the words complained of.

The court considered the established principles governing applications to amend pleadings and to strike out defamatory imputations. The court noted that an imputation would be struck out if it was plainly incapable of being conveyed by the words complained of. However, the court emphasised that determining whether words could convey an imputation was an exercise in generosity, not parsimony. The ordinary and natural meaning of the words may include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader would draw from the language used. The court also noted that irrelevant detail in the pleading of an imputation should generally be struck out as it may leave the defendant unclear about what must be proved to justify the truth of the imputation.

In this case, the court found that the existing imputation was arguably conveyed by the words complained of. While an accountancy investigation was not necessarily restricted to questions of money, it was arguable that a reasonable reader would regard such an investigation as connected with a company's funds. The court also found that the proposed amendment to the imputation did not render it embarrassing, as the addition of "committed a serious criminal offence" was simply an adjectival characterisation of the preceding words and did not introduce any new material that might give rise to disputes at trial.

Accordingly, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim and dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the existing imputation.

Orders