Walter v West Australian Newspapers Ltd - [2005] WASC 235

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WALTER -v- WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD & ANOR [2005] WASC 235

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 14 OCTOBER 2005

DELIVERED : 4 NOVEMBER 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 2618 of 2004

BETWEEN: JULIAN ALAN WALTER
Plaintiff
AND
WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (ACN 008 667 632)
First Defendant
NEALE ROBERT PRIOR
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out pleaded imputation - Statement of belief as to a matter - Whether capable of conveying imputation as to the fact of the matter - Whether there is "bane and antidote" - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J D MacLaurin
First Defendant             :     Ms C Galati
Second Defendant         :     Ms C Galati

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Clayton Utz
First Defendant             :     Edwards Wallace
Second Defendant         :     Edwards Wallace

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

Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 679
Chalmers v Payne (1835) 150 ER 67
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52
Gumina v Williams (No 1) (1990) 3 WAR 342
Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362
Kerr v Force (1826) 3 Cranch CC 8
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 418
Sergi v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1983] 2 NSWLR 669
Stubbs Ltd v Russell [1913] AC 386
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309

Case(s) also cited:

Birmingham v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1999] WASC 19
Chan v Trevor [2004] WASC 53
Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65
Cock v Hughes [2001] WASC 24
Emerson v Walker [1999] WASC 265
Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Yoon Shin Lee v Bob Chae-Sang Cha [2005] NSWCA 279

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the defendants to strike out the defamatory imputation pleaded in pars 4 and 7 respectively of the statement of claim.
The first defendant is the proprietor and publisher of "The West Australian" newspaper and the second defendant is a journalist employed by the first defendant.
It is alleged in the statement of claim that, on or about 18 December 2003, the defendants published in "The West Australian" newspaper an article, under the heading "Buckeridge, Walter sling brickbats", which contained the following words:
"THE simmering row between construction mogul Len Buckeridge and his former business partner, Julian Walter, has erupted into tit‑for‑tat ligation [sic] over the carve‑up of their former building joint venture J‑Corp Pty Ltd.
Mr Buckeridge is pushing for a quick judgment in the WA Supreme Court after two of his private companies, including J‑Corp Pty Ltd itself, sued Mr Walter for about $700,000 last month over valuations of J‑Corp and its assets.
The companies are claiming to be owed the money as a deferred settlement payment of their carve‑up in July of J‑Corp that ended with Mr Buckeridge owning 100 per cent of J‑Corp and Mr Walter owning…

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 Walter v West Australian Newspapers Ltd 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: [2005] WASC 235
Decision Date: 4 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walter v West Australian Newspapers Ltd involved the plaintiff, Walter, seeking to address defamatory imputations published by the defendant, West Australian Newspapers Ltd. The dispute centred around statements made in a newspaper article that the plaintiff alleged were defamatory. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the statements in question were capable of conveying a defamatory imputation. The legal issues before the court were whether the statements could be construed as conveying an imputation about the fact of the matter, and if there was a "bane and antidote" situation that would affect the admissibility of the evidence.

The court was required to delve into the nature of the statements and whether they conveyed an imputation regarding the fact of the matter. It considered whether the statement of belief could be seen as an imputation of fact, rather than opinion. Additionally, the court examined the concept of "bane and antidote" to determine if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was tainted by an inadmissible statement, thereby affecting its admissibility. This analysis was critical in understanding the full context and potential impact of the statements made.

The court concluded that the statements did not convey a defamatory imputation about the fact of the matter, as they were more in the nature of opinions. It found that the "bane and antidote" situation did not apply in this case, and therefore the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not compromised. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between opinion and fact in defamation cases, and the nuanced application of the "bane and antidote" doctrine.

Orders