Waterhouse v Perkins - [2000] NSWSC 611

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Waterhouse v Perkins [2000] NSWSC 611

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

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

HEARING DATE{S): 15 & 16 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 16/06/2000

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

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
TK Tobin QC / RA Campbell (Plaintiff)
PJ Beazley (Solicitor) (1st Def)
BAM Connell (2nd Def)
DA Caspersonn (4th Def - No. 13146/91)
MG Stubbs (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:
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS - when issues can be re-litigated. DEFAMATION - imputations.

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:
See paras 43 - 47.

JUDGMENT:

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
DUNFORD J
Friday, 16 June 2000
13146/91 Martin Otto WATERHOUSE v Kevin PERKINS & ors
21381/96 Martin Otto WATERHOUSE v Kevin PERKINS & ors
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The 2nd defendant in proceedings 13146/91 and the 2nd and 5th defendants in proceedings 21381/96 object to various of the imputations set out in the Statements of Claim, both as to form and capacity. A preliminary issue arises in relation to these objections in that Levine J heard argument from the 1st defendant in person in relation to the imputations pleaded in the 1991 proceedings on 4 October 1996 and delivered judgment thereon on 10 October 1996. The 2nd and 4th defendants in the 1991 proceedings were both represented in court during that hearing by solicitors and, although expressly invited to do so, made no submissions in relation thereto.
The imputations in the 1996 proceedings are in identical form, but neither the 2nd defendant nor the 5th defendant in those proceeding were represented at that hearing, and the 1996 proceedings were not before his Honour on that occasion. Incidentally the 2nd defendant in the 1996 proceedings is now represented by the same counsel and solicitor as the 2nd defendant in the 1991 proceedings although the parties themselves are not related.
It appears that the hearing before Levine J in October 1996 was dealt with as an application to strike out the relevant imputations and not as the trial of a separate issue pursuant to SCR Pt 31, and accordingly his Honour's rulings do not give rise to any form of judgment which would occasion a res judicata finding on all the parties to the proceedings, but merely amounted to…

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 611
Case: [2000] NSWSC 611
Decision Date: 16 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waterhouse v Perkins involved a dispute regarding defamatory imputations made by the defendant, Perkins, against the plaintiff, Waterhouse. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to challenge the interlocutory judgment made by a lower court, arguing that certain issues should not have been precluded from further litigation.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the scope of interlocutory judgments in defamation cases and whether certain defamatory imputations should be re-litigated. The plaintiff argued that the lower court had erred in precluding certain defamatory imputations from being further examined, claiming that these issues were not adequately considered. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the interlocutory judgment was correctly made and that the issues in question should remain precluded.

The court examined the principles governing interlocutory judgments and the circumstances under which issues may be re-litigated. It was noted that interlocutory judgments are generally binding unless there is a clear error of law or a significant change in circumstances. The court found that the lower court did not err in precluding the re-litigation of the specified defamatory imputations. The evidence presented did not demonstrate any significant change in circumstances that would warrant revisiting the earlier decision. Consequently, the court upheld the interlocutory judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's application to re-litigate the issues.

The court's final orders confirmed the interlocutory judgment made by the lower court, precluding the plaintiff from further litigating the specified defamatory imputations. The plaintiff's application to re-litigate these issues was dismissed, and the court's decision was upheld.

Orders