Wookey v Quigley - [2009] WASC 284

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WOOKEY -v- QUIGLEY [2009] WASC 284

CORAM: HASLUCK J

HEARD: 15 SEPTEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1176 of 2009

BETWEEN: DARRYL ANNE WOOKEY
Plaintiff
AND
JOHN ROBERT QUIGLEY
Respondent

Catchwords:

Defamation - Application to strike out defence in defamation action - Rules concerning Polly Peck defence - Meaning of 'publish' and 'republish' in context of defamation actions - Whether the imputation pleaded by the defendant as an alternative meaning can be characterised as a meaning that is less injurious and not substantially different from the meaning alleged by the plaintiff - Whether a person who authorises republication may be held liable for damages - Finding that statement of defence should be struck out in its entirety but upon the basis that the defendant will be granted leave to replead within a time fixed by the court

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 26
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 19(1)(a), O 20 r 19(1)(b), O 20 r 19(1)(c)

Result:

Order for statement of defence to be struck out in entirety with leave granted to the defendant to replead within a time to be fixed by the court

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M L Bennett
Respondent: Mr M J McCusker QC & Ms J Di Lena

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Lavan Legal
Respondent: Edwards Wallace

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

Cock v Hughes [2001] WASC 24
E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20
Harding v Essey [2005] WASCA 30; (2005) 30 WAR 1
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1
Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440
Lazarus v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (1985) 1 NSWLR 188
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632
Monte v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 663
Polly Peck (Holdings) PLC v Trelford (1986) QB 1000
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237
Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1
Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation (1991) 1 QB 283
Smith v Littlemore (1996) 15 WAR 289
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Elliott [2008] WASCA 172; (2008) 250 ALR 363

HASLUCK J:

The application

The plaintiff, Darryl Anne Wookey, has applied to strike out the statement of defence in this matter as appears from a chamber summons dated 17 July 2009. She seeks an order that the defence be struck out or alternatively those parts of the defence identified in the schedule to the chamber summons be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) on the grounds that such pleadings do not disclose a reasonable defence or, in the alternative, are embarrassing.
It will be useful to begin by looking at the background to the dispute between the parties in overview before turning to the pleadings…

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 Wookey v Quigley 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: [2009] WASC 284
Decision Date: 23 SEPTEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Wookey v Quigley before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Wookey, to strike out the defendant's statement of defence in a defamation action. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the imputation pleaded by the defendant as an alternative meaning could be characterised as a less injurious meaning that was not substantially different from the meaning alleged by the plaintiff. The court was also required to determine whether a person who authorises republication could be held liable for damages.

The court found that the statement of defence should be struck out in its entirety but that the defendant would be granted leave to replead within a time fixed by the court. The court held that the defendant's statement of defence did not provide a valid defence to the defamation claim. The court found that the imputation pleaded by the defendant as an alternative meaning was not a less injurious meaning that was not substantially different from the meaning alleged by the plaintiff. The court also found that a person who authorises republication could be held liable for damages.

The court ordered that the statement of defence be struck out in its entirety but granted the defendant leave to replead within a time to be fixed by the court. The court found that the defendant's statement of defence did not provide a valid defence to the defamation claim and that the defendant should be given an opportunity to amend their defence. The court ordered that the statement of defence be struck out in its entirety and that the defendant be granted leave to replead within a time to be fixed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order for statement of defence to be struck out in entirety with leave granted to the defendant to replead within a time to be fixed by the court

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.