WILSON -v- COXON [No 2] [2015] WASC 197
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 197 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2803/2013 | 1 APRIL 2015 | |
| Coram: | KENNETH MARTIN J | 29/05/15 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Paragraph 15 of defendant's defence struck out | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FRANK CULLITY WILSON ANNA LOUISE COXON |
Catchwords: | Civil law Defamation Strikeout Popular or false innuendos Legal or true innuendos Abandonment of Polly Peck imputation plea No plea of justification Stand-alone plea of facts in attempted mitigation of damages Strikeout application Application of Burstein Aspects Provocation Directly relevant background context |
Legislation: | Defamation Act 2005 (WA) |
Case References: | Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579; [2001] EMLR 14 Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd (No 2) [1999] EWHC QB 240 Lower Murray Urban & Rural Water Corporation v Di Masi [2014] VSCA 104; [2014] Aust Tort Reports 82-187 Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090; [1961] 2 WLR 470 Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000; [1986] 2 WLR 845 Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491 Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 540; [2006] 1 WLR 3469 Warren v The Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834; [2009] QB 600 West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott [2008] WASCA 172; (2008) 37 WAR 387 Wilson v Coxon [2014] WASC 268 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
ANNA LOUISE COXON
Defendant
Catchwords:
Civil law - Defamation - Strikeout - Popular or false innuendos - Legal or true innuendos - Abandonment of Polly Peck imputation plea - No plea of justification - Stand-alone plea of facts in attempted mitigation of damages - Strikeout application - Application of Burstein - Aspects - Provocation - Directly relevant background context
Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Result:
Paragraph 15 of defendant's defence struck out
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr C E Chenu
Defendant : Mr S M Davies SC
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Bennett + Co
Defendant : Lemonis & Tantiprasut Lawyers
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579; [2001] EMLR 14
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd (No 2) [1999] EWHC QB 240
Lower Murray Urban & Rural Water Corporation v Di Masi [2014] VSCA 104; [2014] Aust Tort Reports 82-187
Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090; [1961] 2 WLR 470
Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000; [1986] 2 WLR 845
Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491
Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 540; [2006] 1 WLR 3469
Warren v The Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834; [2009] QB 600
West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott…
Continue reading Wilson v Coxon [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wilson v Coxon [No 2] [2015] WASC 197
- Case
- [2015] WASC 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Wilson v Coxon, the plaintiff sought to sue the defendant for defamation. The dispute concerned the alleged defamatory imputations made by the defendant against the plaintiff, which were published in a media release. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made defamatory statements in a media release, which were intended to be read or heard by a significant portion of the public. The defendant, in turn, argued that the statements were true and justified, and that any harm caused was not as a result of the publication of the statements.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations and, if so, whether those imputations were true or justified. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the defendant's abandonment of a particular plea in relation to the imputations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's plea of facts, which attempted to mitigate the damages claimed by the plaintiff, was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application.
The court held that the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations against the plaintiff, but that those imputations were not true or justified. The court found that the defendant had abandoned the plea in relation to the imputations, and that the plaintiff's claim was therefore not barred. However, the court also held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application, and that it should be struck out. The court found that the plea of facts did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation.
The court's decision was based on the principles set out in Burstein and other relevant authorities. The court held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation. The court found that the plea of facts was therefore a futile and oppressive pleading, and that it should be struck out. Accordingly, the court made an order striking out paragraph 15 of the defendant's defence.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations and, if so, whether those imputations were true or justified. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the defendant's abandonment of a particular plea in relation to the imputations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's plea of facts, which attempted to mitigate the damages claimed by the plaintiff, was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application.
The court held that the defendant's media release contained defamatory imputations against the plaintiff, but that those imputations were not true or justified. The court found that the defendant had abandoned the plea in relation to the imputations, and that the plaintiff's claim was therefore not barred. However, the court also held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that could be the subject of a strikeout application, and that it should be struck out. The court found that the plea of facts did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation.
The court's decision was based on the principles set out in Burstein and other relevant authorities. The court held that the defendant's plea of facts was a stand-alone plea that did not provide a directly relevant background context to the imputations, and that it did not relate to any aspect of provocation. The court found that the plea of facts was therefore a futile and oppressive pleading, and that it should be struck out. Accordingly, the court made an order striking out paragraph 15 of the defendant's defence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Paragraph 15 of defendant's defence struck out
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.