Home - Legal Actions
LIST OF ACTIONS
Relating to "The Mickelberg Stitch" and "Split Image"

  • 1331 of 1985 Lewandowski -v- Lovell
  • 124 of 1985 [Appeal] Lovell -v- Lewandowski [to set aside an injunction permanently restraining sale of "The Mickelberg Stitch"]
  • 1560 0f 1986 Round v Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1561 of 1986 Billing -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1562 of 1986 Billing -v- Lovell 1575 of 1986 Billing -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1572 of 1986 Hancock -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1573 of 1986 Billing -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1574 of 1986 Hancock -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1575 of 1986 Hancock -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1576 of 1986 Henley -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1577 of 1986 Henley -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1578 of 1986 Henley -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1579 of 1986 Henning -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1580 of 1986 Henning -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1581 of 1986 Henning -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1582 of 1986 Hooft -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1583 of 1986 Hooft -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1584 of 1986 Hooft -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1585 of 1986 Lewandowski -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1586 of 1986 Lewandowski -v- Myer (WA) StoresLtd
  • 1587 of 1986 Lewandowski -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1588 of 1986 Round -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1589 of 1986 Round -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1590 of 1986 Round -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1591 of 1986 Tovey -v- Gordon & Gotch Ltd
  • 1592 of 1986 Tovey -v- Myer (WA) Stores Ltd
  • 1593 of 1986 Tovey -v- Woolworths (WA) Ltd
  • 1761 of 1986 Henning -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1762 of 1986 Henley -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1763 of 1986 Hooft -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1764 of 1986 Round -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1765 of 1986 Tovey -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1766 of 1986 Lewandowski -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1767 of 1986 Hancock -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 1805 of 1986 Billing -v- Charles Thomas Enterprises
  • 2119 of 1986 Hancock -v- Lovell
  • 2120 of 1986 Henley -v- Lovell
  • 2121 of 1986 Hooft -v- Lovell
  • 2122 of 1986 Henning -v- Lovell
  • 2123 of 1986 Round -v- Lovell
  • 2124 of 1986 Tovey -v- Lovell
  • of 1986 Lovell -v- Hill [Writ of Mandamus to compel the Director of Prison to allow visits by Lovell to the Mickelberg brothers which had been banned without reason]
  • 2701 of 1987 Lovell -v- Channel 7, Mills & Brennan [defamation regarding statements by Hancock that The Mickelberg Stitch was a "litany of lies"]
  • 2702 of 1987 Lovell -v- Hancock [defamation, same as No. 43]
  • 150 of 1988 [Appeal] Lovell -v- Billing [to amend Lovell's defence in Billing's action as a result of changes to his claim a few weeks prior to the due date for trial]
  • 1861 of 1989 Lovell -v- Sunday Times and Parker & Parker [defamation following a threat by the Crown Prosecutor to sue newspapers running advertisements for Split Image.
  • 2197 of 1989 Lovell -v- McKechnie
  • 2216 of 1989 Lovell -v- McKechnie
  • 1093 of 1990 Lovell -v- WA Police Union & Stingemore
  • 28550 of 1990 Federal DPP -v- Lovell [Petty Sessions]
  • 28551 of 1990 Federal DPP -v- Lovell [Petty Sessions]
  • 45822 of 1990 Federal DPP -v- Lovell [Petty Sessions]
  • 2485 of 1990 Lovell -v- Zempilas & DPP [Supreme Court]
  • DPP 34 of 1990 R -v- Lovell [District Court]
  • 131 of 1990 Lovell -v- Zempilas & Jacobsen [Federal Court]
  • 144 of 1990 Lovell -v- Zempilas and Jacobsen [Federal Court]
  • 2250 of 1990 Lovell -v- WA Police Union, Quigley, Kott Gunning, Lewandowski, Hancock and Billing
  • 2083 of 1991 Lovell -v- Jacobsen
  • 1278 of 1992 Lovell -v- Kott Gunning, O'Hara and Chenu
  • 1742 of 1992 Lovell -v- Lewandowski [Caveat]
  • 2281 of 1992 Lovell -v- Ayton [Writ of Mandamus]
  • 26 of 1992 [Appeal] Lewandowski & others -v- Lovell
  • 54 of 1992 [Appeal] Lovell -v- Billing
  • 108 of 1992 [Appeal] Lewandowski -v- Lovell
  • 1000 of 1993 Lovell -v- Hancock
  • 113 of 1994 [Appeal] Jacobsen -v- Lovell
  • 143 of 1994 [Appeal] Lovell -v- Quigley & Kott Gunning
  • 154 of 1994 [Appeal] WA Police Union -v- Lovell
  • P6 of 1994 [High Court Special Leave] Lovell -v- Lewandowski
  • 5 of 1995 [Appeal] Lovell -v- Lewandowski Billing & Hancock
  • 105 of 1996 Lewandowski -v- Lovell [Writ of Fi-Fa on Appeal costs]
  • of 1996 Lewandowski -v- Lovell [Writ of Fi-Fa on Appeal costs]
  • of 1996 Billing -v- Lovell [Writ of Fi-Fa on Appeal costs]
  • S13337 of 1996 [Petty Sessions perjury complaint] Lovell -v- Lewandowski
  • S23395 of 1996 [Local Court summons] Jacobsen -v- Lovell
    Lovell counterclaim on same action
  • 1996, September: Deed of Settlement on all outstanding actions between Lovell/Thomas and the Police Union and Police Officers.
  • 2012 of 2002, Kennedy v Lovell [Contempt charge re Royal Commission]
  • DC3352 of 2002 Lovell v Seven Network and Mickelbergs [breach of contract]
  • 2034 of 2003 Lovell v State of WA, WA Police Union and various Police
    [Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Conspiracy to Injure etc]
  • 193 of 2004 Kennedy v Lovell [Fi Fa on Contempt Costs, $15,804]
  • 1998 of 2004 Lovell v Penkin [Negligence, discontinued]
  • 12723 of 2004 Penkin v Lovell [re costs of action against the State, ca $20,000 Lovell counterclaims in negligence, $5.3m]
  • 2355 of 2005 Lovell v Penkin [No. 82 moved to Supreme Court as a claim]
  • 1701 of 2007 Lovell v WA Police Union & Ors, dismissed 18 December 07 by consent.
  • JO 11690 of 2007 Police v Lovell, DUI, dismissed, no evidence, 5 March 2010.
  • JO 11691 of 2007 Police v Lovell, Refuse Breath Test, pending.
  • JO 11692 of 2007 Police v Lovell, Failure to Accompany, dismissed, no evidence, 5 March 2010.
  • JO 11693 of 2007, Police v Lovell, Obstruct Police Officer, dismissed, no evidence, 5 March 2010.
  • JO 11694 of 2007, Police v Lovell, Refuse Breath Test, pending.
  • WAD 31 of 2008, Lovell v Penkin & Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, Civ 2355 of 2005, Lovell v Penkin moved to Federal Court for leave to proceed under provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.
  • CACV 5 of 2008, Lovell v WA Police Union & Ors, Court of Appeal application to leave to appeal out of time in respect of Civ 2034 of 2003 Lovell v State of WA, WA Police Union & Ors.

Some reported decisions re various actions

[145 WA 1] Lovell v Lewandowski - Supreme Court, WA, Full Court - 18 Oct 1985 App No 124/85
Media - Interlocutory restraint of publication
Held:
(i) It is only in exceptional circumstances that the court will grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from further publishing the matter complained of.
(ii) Per Kennedy and Olney JJ, (Wallace J dissenting): In the subject case, where the defendant intended to justify, exceptional circumstances had not been shown.

[325 WA 28] Lovell v Western Australia Police Union of Workers - Supreme Court, WA - Master White - 20 Dec 1990 2250/90
Pleadings - Statement of claim - Application to strike out - Tort of maintenance alleged
Tort - Maintenance - Whether actionable in Western Australia
The defendant, a union, sought an order striking out the plaintiff's action on the ground, inter alia, that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action for the reason that the claim was based upon the tort of maintenance for which the defendant could not be sued.
Held, dismissing the application: The tort of maintenance was actionable and the claim did not disclose a cause of action which was manifestly groundless or untenable.

Lovell v Ajduk [1991] ACL Rep 405 FC 38 : (1991) 28 FCR 565; (1991) 23 ALD 191; (1991) 21 ATR 1598; 91 ATC 4358
Lovell v Ajduk [1991] ACL Rep 385 FC 2
[385 FC 2] Lovell v Ajduk & Jacobsen - Federal Court of Australia - Lee J - 15 Apr 1991 WAG 141/90
Interpretation - 'Divulging taxation information' - Coded material - Code not known to persons to whom material was shown - Mere delivery of document containing statements prepared by the ATO in code not 'divulging taxation information'
This was an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) for an order to review the decision of a stipendiary magistrate to commit the applicant for trial upon an offence under s 8XB of the (CTH) Taxation Administration Act 1953 (the Administration Act). Allegedly the applicant 'divulged' taxation information relating to another person, such information being disclosed to him in breach of s 8XB(1)(b) of the Administration Act. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution were that the applicant held a press conference at the offices of his solicitor, where a press release with a number of annexures was distributed. One of the annexures was a document which, allegedly emanated from the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO), contained a small amount of information regarding the tax affairs of a particular taxpayer. The information was coded. At the preliminary hearing the applicant made a submission of no case to answer. The applicant sought an order to review on the ground that the magistrate's decision involved an error of law in the finding that there was evidence capable of being accepted by a jury that taxation information had been divulged by the applicant.
Held, allowing the application:
(i) There was no evidence that any knowledge of the meaning of the code was held by either of the parties to whom the applicant delivered the document and no suggestion that any part of the code was known to the public.
(ii) It was part of the ordinary meaning of the word 'divulge' as used in s 8XB of the Administration Act that the act of divulging involved the exposure of information. The mere delivery of a document containing statements prepared by the ATO in code did not constitute the divulging of information unless a further disclosure of the meaning of the code was made by an officer of the ATO.
(iii) The magistrate's decision to commit the applicant for trial was not founded upon a consideration of what information, if any, was actually divulged by the applicant but upon evidence of what could have been divulged if the applicant had knowledge of and had divulged the meaning of the coded information.
(CTH) Taxation Administration Act 1953 s 8
Lovell v WA Police Union [1991] ACL Rep 325 WA 28 : (1991) Aust Torts Reports 81-073
Lovell v WA Police Union [1991] ACL Rep 325 WA 73
[325 WA 73] Lovell v Western Australian Police Union - Supreme Court, WA - Master Ng - 12 Apr 1991 8810/91
Costs - Security for costs - Order made when plaintiff outside jurisdiction - Not aware of service - Application to set aside
The plaintiff sued the defendants for defamation. The defendants applied for security for costs. The plaintiff did not appear but an order for security of costs was made. The court was not informed of the fact that the plaintiff was outside the jurisdiction. He applied to have the order set aside.
Held, granting the application to set aside the order for security for costs: In the circumstances of the case it would be unjust that the order should be allowed to remain.
Lovell v Zempilas [1991] ACL Rep 125 FC 1 : (1990) 21 ALD 728
[125 FC 1]
Lovell v Zempilas - Federal Court of Australia - French J - 5 Dec 1990 GDWA131/90
Federal Court - Stay of proceedings in State court - Criminal prosecution by Commonwealth officer - Abuse of process alleged
Criminal law - Office of public prosecutions - Commonwealth prosecution proceedings in State Court - Stay of proceedings as abuse of process
Held: Assuming that the Federal Court has the power under s 39B(1) of the (CTH) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to stay criminal proceedings in the District Court (WA) in which the prosecutor is the Director of Public Prosecutions, its intervention on the ground of abuse of process would involve an unacceptable intrusion on the jurisdiction of a State court quite capable of addressing the issues and would also result in a most undesirable fragmentation of the trial process.
(CTH) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s 39B
Lewandowski v Lovell [1991] ACL Rep 325 WA 104 : (1991) 4 WAR 311
Lovell, Re [1992] ACL Rep 405 FC 15
[405 FC 15] Re Lovell - Federal Court of Australia - Lee J - 15 Apr 1991
Offences - Committal review - Coded data - Whether taxation information 'divulged'
Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533; (1983) 76 FLR 296; Kunakool v Boys (1987) 14 FCR 489; (1987) 77 ALR 435; (1987) 26 A Crim R 1; Forsyth v Rodda (1988) 37 A Crim R 50, followed.
(CTH) Taxation Administration Act 1953 s 8XB
Lewandowski v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 325 WA 34
Billing v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 145 WA 1
Billing v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 325 WA 50
Lewandowski v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 145 WA 2
Lewandowski v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 325 WA 88
Lewandowski v Lovell [1992] ACL Rep 325 WA 105
Lovell v Ayton [1992] ACL Rep 320 WA 3
Lovell v WA Police Union [1992] ACL Rep 415 WA 2
Lovell v WA Police Union [1993] ACL Rep 145 WA 1
Lovell v Knott Gunning [1993] ACL Rep 145 WA 3
Lewandowski v Lovell [1993] ACL Rep 325 WA 42
[325 WA 42] Lewandowski v Lovell - Supreme Court, WA - Ag Master Adams - 4 Dec 1991 9175.2 Judgment received 26/2/93
Witnesses - Defamation action by police officers - Witness approached by senior police officer - Need to safeguard integrity of trial process
Contempt - Contempt of court - Defamation action by police officers - Witness approached by senior police officer - Approach improper
Held: Interference with witnesses is not only improper but is a contempt of court as well as an indictable offence.

Lewandowski v Lovell [1993] ACL Rep 135 WA 2
Lewandowski v Lovell [1993] ACL Rep 145 WA 8
Lewandowski v Lovell [1993] ACL Rep 325 WA 42
Lovell v WA Police Union [1993] ACL Rep 325 WA 133
Lewandowski v Lovell [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 7
Lovell v Lewandowski [1994] ACL Rep 130 WA 2
Lovell v Hancock [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 19
Lewandowski v Lovell [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 50 : (1994) 11 WAR 124 Lewandowski v Lovell [1994] ACL Rep 195 WA 8
Lewandowski v Lovell [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 82
Lovell v Jacobsen [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 148
Lovell v WA Police Union of Workers [1994] ACL Rep 325 WA 149!)
Lewandowski v Lovell [1995] ACL Rep 145 WA 2 : (1995) 123 FLR 450; (1995) 13 WAR 468!)
[145 WA 2] Lewandowski v Lovell - Supreme Court, WA - Master Adams - 4 Apr 1995 950163, 7 pages
Privilege - Whether defence of qualified privilege available - Implied freedom in Constitution of free political discussion - Whether matter falls within definition of 'political discussion' - Libel action by police officers accused of perverting course of justice
Held, the proposed defence is arguable and should be allowed to go on the record:
(i) It is open to argument that the kind of conduct complained of here is a legitimate subject for political discussion.
(ii) A police officer, who was at the time a sergeant or detective sergeant, in charge of an investigation and invested with the power and sanction of the State in terms of arrest, search and seizure cannot be said to be a public officer of insignificance.
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 124 ALR 1; (1994) 68 ALJR 713; (1994) 34 ALD 1; (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-297; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (No 2) (1992) 177 CLR 106; (1992) 108 ALR 577; (1992) 66 ALJR 695, applied.

Lovell v Police Union of Workers (WA) [1996] ACL Rep 325 WA 49
Jacobsen v Lovell [1996] ACL Rep 135 WA 16
[135 WA 16] Jacobsen v Lovell - Supreme Court, WA, Full Court - Pidgeon, Rowland and Ipp JJ - 24 Apr 1996 9600211, BC9601714, 20 pages
Assessment - Wrongful arrest - Appellant federal police officer arrested respondent - Charged with improper information access - Prosecution filed nolle prosequi - Whether arrest necessary - Whether summons would have been effective - Respondent awarded $20,000 by majority jury - $10,000 for loss of liberty - $10,000 for injury to feelings not unjustifiably high
Held, allowing the appeal, reducing the damages from $20,000 to $10,500: The award of $10,000 for loss of liberty and damage to reputation is excessive and is reduced to $500.
(CTH) Crimes Act 1914 s 8A
Lewandowski v Lovell [1996] ACL Rep 325 WA 86
Lewandowski v Lovell [1996] ACL Rep 325 WA 90
Lewandowski v Lovell [1996] ACL Rep 325 WA 13