Waterhouse v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 723

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Waterhouse v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 723 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20386/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 August 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 August 2001

PARTIES : Gai Waterhouse - Plaintiff Nationwide News Pty Ltd - Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J

COUNSEL : Mr C Evatt - Plaintiff SOLICITORS : Mr T Blackburn - Defendant CATCHWORDS : Defamation - imputations LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 1974 DECISION : Reasons for rulings on imputations.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION Defamation List

SIMPSON J

27 August 2001

20386/01 WATERHOUSE v NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD Reasons HER HONOUR : 1 The plaintiff, Gai Waterhouse, has sued the defendant, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, in defamation as a result of a publication in "the Daily Telegraph" on 7 May 2001. She alleges that no less than thirteen defamatory imputations were conveyed by the publication. The defendant raised a number of objections to the imputations pleaded. Argument took place and I delivered rulings on 10 August 2001. The defendant requested reasons for my rulings. My reasons follow. 2 The matter complained of appears to be an opinion piece, which may, from its content, have appeared in the sports pages, although this does not emerge from the pleadings. It appeared under the heading "Why run risk with Robbie". Thirty two short paragraphs, comprised numbered for the purposes of the pleading, comprise the piece. In the first paragraph the principal subject matter of the article is identified as a person called Robbie Waterhouse who, it is suggested, may return to bookmaking after an enforced absence as a result of "race fixing". 3 The author of the article, who is not named, clearly states his or her opposition to Waterhouse's return. He or she discusses in general terms, the sport of horse racing, its image and ethics. 4 Although it is not stated explicitly, it is a fair inference, from certain passages in the article, that the plaintiff is the wife of Robbie Waterhouse. She (the plaintiff) is first mentioned in the eleventh paragraph of the article, where she is described as a person: "who provides a great service to punters with her unmatched strike rate…" 5 In the paragraph numbered 13, the author writes: "So much of what Gai has achieved could be undone by fears that her husband, on a bookie stand, could be benefiting from inside information again. T J Smith used to annoy the hell out of punters enough with stable outsiders winning. Try the same with Gai's old man swinging a satchel." 6 The author then goes on to mention "a couple of recent incidents". These concern what the author obviously considers to be surprising, and unexplained, (and suspicious) results in specific races. This is followed by a paragraph which reads: "No matter what the explanation that just gives punters the creeps. So magnify the groans over these sorts of things, with the suspicions - founded or unfounded - that Robbie might be pulling strings." 7 A little later there is mention of "worries about race fixing and money laundering". 8 The overall tenor of the article, so far as it concerns the plaintiff, is undoubtedly favourable. However, it contains the unmistakable suggestion that she would be vulnerable to her husband's dishonest disposition if he were permitted to return to bookmaking. 9 One matter of contention was disposed of at the commencement of the hearing. Counsel for the plaintiff acknowledged that the pleading would sit on firmer ground if some, or all, of the imputations relied, alternatively to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words published, on extrinsic facts. He announced his intention, subject to leave being granted, of amending the statement of claim to incorporate an allegation that the imputations(s) arose by way of true innuendo. This deflected some of the argument addressed to the pleading. The rulings I made were in part based upon the recognition that the statement of claim would be so amended.