Wilson v Matthys - [2018] WASC 281

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   WILSON -v- MATTHYS [2018] WASC 281
CORAM:   KENNETH MARTIN J
HEARD:   28 JUNE 2018 AND BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF 19 JULY AND 2 AUGUST 2018
DELIVERED          :   7 SEPTEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3167 of 2017
BETWEEN:   FRANK CULLITY WILSON
Plaintiff
AND
JULIUS MATTHYS
First Defendant
DALTON GOODING
Second Defendant
JOHN GROPPOLI
Third Defendant
MICHAEL KAY
Fourth Defendant
GILLIAN FRANKLIN
Fifth Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Strike out application - Imputations - True innuendos - Electronic publications - Identification and publication issues - Form defects in all imputations - Substantive defect by premise of plaintiff's imputations

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Statement of claim struck out with leave to replead

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M L Bennett
First Defendant	:	Mr A C Willinge
Second Defendant	:	Mr A C Willinge
Third Defendant	:	Mr A C Willinge
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr A C Willinge
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr A C Willinge

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett + Co
First Defendant	:	Ashurst Australia
Second Defendant	:	Ashurst Australia
Third Defendant	:	Ashurst Australia
Fourth Defendant	:	Ashurst Australia
Fifth Defendant	:	Ashurst Australia

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

Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2016] WASCA 83
Smith v Marshall [2014] WASC 185
Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25

KENNETH MARTIN J:

Introduction

This is an interlocutory strike out application by the defendants under their application of 16 May 2018.
The application challenges paragraphs within the plaintiff's statement of claim of 26 March 2018 as failing to disclose an arguable cause of action or as embarrassing. Alternatively, the defendants seek better particulars in respect of some answers given by the plaintiff on 3 May 2018 (but contended to be inadequate).

Overview

The plaintiff, Mr Frank Cullity Wilson (Mr Wilson), is the former managing director of Quintis Ltd (Quintis). He held that position and, by reason of it, his membership on the board of Quintis until March 2017.
As plaintiff, Mr Wilson now sues for defamation over two 2017 publications that were issued by Quintis and which then appeared on an Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) electronic media broadcasting service. Essentially, Mr Wilson relies on true innuendo meanings argued by him to be pejorative against him and arising, he argues, from the two publications.
Mr Wilson's grievances are essentially based on true innuendo meanings grounded upon the asserted knowledge likely to be held by readers of financial publications or by persons who are followers of the financial media in Australia.
By this defamation action, Mr Wilson pursues not Quintis but, rather, the residual directors of that corporation. These are the persons who as directors constituted its board following his departure. Mr Wilson sues in respect of alleged republications of what was first published by the ASX.
The heart of Mr Wilson's defamation grievances uniformly rest upon a contention of fact by him and which he founds all his imputations upon.
The negative fact premise contended by Mr Wilson is that he…

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 Wilson v Matthys

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Matthys [2018] WASC 281
Case: [2018] WASC 281
Decision Date: 7 SEPTEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defamation claim brought by Wilson against Matthys. The dispute centred on certain publications made by Matthys which Wilson alleged were defamatory. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant in various electronic publications.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the imputations made in the publications were defamatory and whether there were sufficient grounds to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. Specifically, the court had to determine if the imputations were true innuendos, whether the electronic publications were properly identified, and if there were any form or substantive defects in the plaintiff's imputations. The court also examined whether the plaintiff's imputations had a substantive defect by their very premise.

The court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim contained significant form defects in all imputations, which necessitated a strike out. The court held that the form defects were not trivial and rendered the statement of claim fundamentally defective. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff's imputations were substantially defective as they were based on a premise that was inherently problematic. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the basis of these defects.

Orders