Knell v Qav Pty Ltd

[2020] WASCA 23

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from District Court
3. › Whether primary judge departed from pleaded issues
4. › Observations made by primary judge after judgment delivery
5. › Whether observations formed part of reasons for judgment
6. › Turns on own facts
1. Evidence
2. › Jones v Dunkel inference
3. › Failure of party to give evidence
4. › Whether satisfactory explanation provided for failure to give evidence
5. › Statement by counsel not constituting evidence
6. › Whether inference properly drawn with greater confidence
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Contextual truth
4. › Qualified privilege
5. › Whether necessary to determine qualified privilege grounds where contextual truth defence upheld
6. › Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 30

Quick Take

The Court held that a statement by counsel during trial that a party did not wish to prolong proceedings is not a sufficient explanation to avoid a Jones v Dunkel inference, particularly where the uncalled witness is a party whose conduct is in issue.

Case Details

Citation[2020] WASCA 23

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.

2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by13

2026Inteforge Pty Ltd v Bhagwan Marine Pty Ltd [No 2]WASC 412
2026Perth Day Hospital Pty Ltd v Fitness Cartel Western Australia Pty Ltd [No 3]WASC 314
2026Romano v Registrar of Births, Deaths and MarriagesWASC 191
2026The State of Western Australia v OrsWASC 80
and 9 more after sign-in

Relies on11

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in