Buckeridge & Anor v Walter

[2006] WASCA 22

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Pleading
3. › Imputation
4. › Whether pleaded imputation capable of arising from words complained of
5. › Whether imputation of theft of money capable of arising from words referring to theft generally
6. › Strike-out application
1. Defamation
2. › Pleading
3. › Imputation
4. › Surplusage
5. › Whether additional words in pleaded imputation embarrassing or irrelevant
6. › Whether words 'serious criminal offence' added to sting of libel
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleading
3. › Strike out
4. › Defamation
5. › Test for striking out pleaded imputation
6. › Whether imputation so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory decision
4. › Whether decision attended by sufficient doubt
5. › Whether substantial injustice if leave refused

Quick Take

A pleaded imputation of theft of 'money' is capable of arising from words referring to 'theft' generally where the context (an 'accountancy investigation') would lead an ordinary reasonable reader to infer that money was stolen. The addition of words characterising the theft as 'a serious criminal offence' is not embarrassing surplusage where it does not create a false issue at trial and may add to the sting of the libel.