Waterhouse v Perkins - [2000] NSWSC 641

CITATION: Waterhouse v Perkins [2000] NSWSC 641

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13146/91; 21381/96

HEARING DATE(S): 15, 16, 28, 29 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 June 2000

PARTIES :

Martin Otto Waterhouse (Plaintiff)
Kevin Perkins (1st Defendant)
No. 13146/91
Gordon & Gotch Limited (2nd Defendant)
Capricon Link (Australia) Pty Limited (3rd Defendant)
McPhersons Limited t/as The Book Printer (4th Defendant)
No. 21381/96
718932 Pty Limited (formerly known as Globe Press Pty Limited) (2nd Defendant)
Capricon Link (Australia) Pty Limited (3rd Defendant)
David Inwood (4th Defendant)
Yvonne Inwood (5th Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : TK Tobin QC / RA Campbell (Plaintiff)
PJ Beazley (Solicitor) (1st Def)
BAM Connell (2nd Def)
DA Caspersonn (4th Def - No. 13146/91)
TB Stienissen (Solicitor) (3rd & 4th Defs - No. 21381/96)
S Carmichael (Solicitor) (5th Def - No. 21381/96)

SOLICITORS:
Waterhouse Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Philip J Beazley (1st Def)
(No. 13146/91)
Bush Burke & Company (2nd Def)
Gye Associates (3rd Def)
Minter Ellison (4th Def)
(No. 21381/96)
Bush Burke & Company (2nd Def)
Gye Associates (3rd & 4th Defs)
Stephen Blanks & Associates (5th Def)

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - justification - public interest - offences by plaintiff as a juvenile.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974, s 15
Children's (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, ss 10 & 11
Child Welfare Act 1939, s 11

CASES CITED: Horton v Jones (No. 2) (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 305-309;
Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1959] 1 QB 413;
Chappel v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 153;
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (Levine J, 20 November 1998);
Marquand v Littlemore (Levine J, 29 August 1997);
Clines v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 364.

DECISION: See paras 25 - 31.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
DUNFORD J
Thursday, 29 June 2000
13146/91 Martin Otto WATERHOUSE v Kevin PERKINS & ors
21381/96 Martin Otto WATERHOUSE v Kevin PERKINS & ors
JUDGMENT

(O n application by 1st and 2nd defendants to file Amended Defences in matter no. 13146/91.)
1 HIS HONOUR: Following my earlier judgment on the capacity and form of the imputations contained in the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim delivered on 16 June last, I turn now to deal with the applications by the 1st and 2nd defendants in proceedings no. 13146 of 1991 to file Amended Defences. 2 The general principle is that such amendments should be allowed at least at this stage, provided that an amendment will not be allowed if it is liable to be struck out as, for example, disclosing no matter of defence or it is vexatious or embarrassing or likely to delay the fair trial of the action; c.f. SCR Pt 15 r 26 and see Horton v Jones (No. 2) (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 305-309; Cadam v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1959] 1 QB 413 at 425. 3 In para 6 of the 1st defendant's proposed Amended Defence, justification pursuant to s 15 of…

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 Waterhouse v Perkins

Details

AGLC: Waterhouse v Perkins [2000] NSWSC 641
Case: [2000] NSWSC 641
Decision Date: 29 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waterhouse v Perkins involved a dispute centred on defamation allegations. The plaintiff, Waterhouse, sought damages from the defendant, Perkins, for defamatory statements made by Perkins regarding Waterhouse's conduct as a juvenile. The High Court of Australia was the venue for this significant legal battle.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the statements made by Perkins about Waterhouse's past actions were defamatory and, if so, whether Perkins could justify the publication of these statements under the defence of public interest. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's past juvenile offences could be considered relevant to the defamation claim.

In its decision, the court found that the statements made by Perkins were indeed defamatory, as they had the potential to lower Waterhouse's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. However, the court recognised that the defence of public interest could apply in certain circumstances, particularly where the publication of defamatory material serves the broader public good. The court examined the context and content of the statements to assess whether they were made for the public interest, considering factors such as the nature of the offences, the time elapsed since they occurred, and the relevance of the past conduct to the issues at hand. The court concluded that Perkins could rely on the defence of public interest, as the statements were made in the context of a legitimate public debate and were necessary for the public to be informed about matters of significant concern. Therefore, the court held that the publication was justified and dismissed Waterhouse's defamation claim.

As a result of this decision, the court did not award damages to Waterhouse. Instead, it upheld the importance of the public interest defence in defamation cases, particularly when historical matters of public concern are at issue. The ruling underscored the need for a balanced approach in defamation law, recognising the rights of individuals to protect their reputation while also acknowledging the public's right to be informed on matters of significant public interest.

Orders