DAWSON v ACP PUBLISHING PTY LTD

Supreme Court of NSW|2002-08-06|Before: Levine J, Hunt J

CITATION : DAWSON v ACP PUBLISHING PTY LTD [2002] NSWSC 712 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20101 OF 2002 HEARING DATE(S) : 6 August 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 August 2002

ACP PUBLISHING PTY LTD (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

B. Rasmussen (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : B. McClintock SC (Defendant) Paul Kenny & Associates (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - mulitplicity - capacity - form - extraneous, rhetorical material - difference in substance LEGISLATION CITED : Defamation Act 1974 Callaghan v Emanuel & Ors (Hunt J,unreported, 24 July 1981) Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors [2002] NSWCA 41 Grubb v Bristol United Press (1963) 1 QB 309 Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 387 Laws v Mirror Newspapers Limited (Hunt J, unreported, 26 July 1983) CASES CITED : Leslie v Western Broadcasting Pty Limited (Hunt J, unreported, 31 May 1991) Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419 Morris v Newcastle Newspapers [1985] 1 NSWLR 260 Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1058 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448 Wheelan v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1998) 12 NSWLR 148 DECISION : See paragraph 42

5 - DJL:1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

20101 OF 2002 CHARLOTTE DAWSON (Plaintiff)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - mulitplicity -capacity - form - extraneous, rhetorical material - difference in substance) 1 By Statement of Claim filed on 2 April 2002 the plaintiff claims damages for defamation in respect of an article published by the defendant in the magazine "Woman's Day". The matter complained of was published on or about 4 September 2000 and is appendix A to these reasons. 2 The plaintiff contends that the publication carries the following imputations defamatory of her. She relies upon the whole of the published material generally in support of each imputation and the specified paragraphs set out following each. 4 (i) That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller, the world class swimmer, in such a way as to shatter his career, bring a looming divorce, demolish his confidence and leave him a changed man. Paragraphs 8 and 10; (ii) That she subjected her husband Scott Miller to a nightmare of emotional and physical abuse. Paragraphs 9; (iii) That her cruel and violent behaviour caused a devastating turn around in the affairs of her husband Scott Miller the easy going larrikin of Australian Sport. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9,10,11, 22, 24 and 31; (iv) That she tormented her husband Scott Miller the easy going larrikin of Australian sport. Paragraphs 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33; (v) That she was so insecure and selfish that she was unable to consider the needs of her husband Scott Miller during his training for Olympic selection. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 34 and 41;

(vi) That she was unjustifiably suspicious that her husband Scott Miller was having an affair. Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35;

(vii) That she was so selfish that she was not willing to give her husband Scott Miller the support she knew he needed in order to qualify as an Olympic athlete. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 39, 44 and 45; (viii) That she tormented her husband Scott Miller at a time when she knew he needed her support. Paragraphs 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33, 34, 38 and 39; (ix) That she was so insecure that she came to resent the fact that her husband Scott Miller threw all of his energies into his training to qualify for the Olympic Games. Paragraphs 39 and 41;

(x) That she was willing to destroy the dream marriage between herself and her husband Scott Miller because of her resentment of the lifestyle of an athlete training for Olympic selection. Paragraphs 9, 12, 13, 14, 38 and 39;

(xi) That she so resented her husband Scott Miller's devotion to his training for Olympic selection that she tried to bring him down. Paragraph 39; (xii) That she used to look for ways to shatter her husband Scott Miller's confidence and hurt his feelings. Paragraphs 38, 39 and 40; (xiii) That she was willing to deliberately inflict emotional hurt on her husband Scott Miller for her own selfish reasons. Paragraphs 10, 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39 and 40; (xiv) That she was willing, through her unreasonable demands, to risk wrecking her husband Scott Miller's prospects of attaining the Olympic Swimming Team. Paragraphs 17, 28, 34, 35, 43, 44 and 45; (xv) That she was unreasonably demanding of her husband Scott Miller. Paragraphs 17, 28, 34, 43, 44 and 45; (xvi) That she failed to contribute her fair share financially in her relationship with her husband Scott Miller although she had ample income of her own from which to contribute. Paragraphs 45 and 46; (xvii) That she was such an uncaring person that she was willing to party whilst she knew that her husband Scott Miller was suffering emotionally. Paragraphs 60 and 61; (xviii) That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller in a selfish, uncaring and unsympathetic manner. Paragraphs 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 39, 46, 60 and 61; (xix) That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller in a malicious and spiteful manner". Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 31, 38, 39, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52 and 56. 3 The defendant takes an objection in general terms to the large number of imputations as being both oppressive and unfair to it, with the potential of causing confusion to the jury. In Callaghan v Emanuel & Ors, unreported, 24 July 1981, Hunt J said: "A multitude of imputations may not infringe the letter of SCR Part 67 Rule 11(3), but they do little to assist a plaintiff in the conduct of his case in front of a jury - issues for a jury should always, so far as possible, be simple and straight forward, not perplexing and pedantic or convoluted and confusing". 4 In a similar context the following was said by Holroyd Pearce LJ in Grubb v Bristol United Press (1963) 1 QB 309 at 329: "It is a matter of substance for the defendants to seek to disembarrass themselves of any supposititious innuendoes before the trial. If a plaintiff were permitted merely by ingenious inference to pile innuendo on innuendo, or, in Mr Faulks' words, to proliferate innuendoes with the aid of Roget's Thesaurus, there would be no limit (except the limits of ingenuity) to the number of causes of action that he could bring".

5 The question of oppression arises by reason of each imputation being a separate cause of action. A defendant in a defamation action is entitled to look with alarm at a pleading which confronts it with nineteen. If, however, each imputation is capable of arising and is proper in form and differs in substance from other imputations, there is nothing a defendant can do about it. Even if imputations comply in the sense just mentioned, a plaintiff is well advised, as a matter of tactics, to determine whether or not it proposes to rely on so many. It is to be borne in mind that since 1995 a jury is concerned only with the question of whether imputations are carried and whether any carried imputation is defamatory. Under the current procedure that tribunal is very much focussed on the question of meaning. That is a factor which a plaintiff should bear very much in mind in adopting the aimed high scatter gun approach. 6 I add that the length of a publication does not necessarily provide a principled basis for the proliferation of imputations. It is the essential sting or stings which should found an appropriate number of causes of action. It really goes without saying that a two paragraph letter may give rise to six or seven imputations and a long newspaper article or lengthy television or radio broadcast might give rise to but one, two or three. 7 As a general proposition in relation to these pleaded imputations the plaintiff contended that the wording (to which the defendant objects and with which I will deal below) is an essential part of the imputation to fully accommodate the gravity of the particular charge. As a general proposition this overlooks the requirement that the imputation simply must specify an act or condition of the plaintiff. If it is contended that an article publishes of the plaintiff that the plaintiff committed the crime of murder - that is, the act - the determination of whether the publication means that, is not aided by including within the imputation the identity, quality, notoriety or other special feature about the victim. Such contextual matters may be available for the determination of the issue of whether any meaning is defamatory (Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos & Ors [2002] NSWCA 41) and may be relevant to the issue of damages. Otherwise, the plaintiff runs the very serious risk of having an imputation struck out as bad in form or, in respect of it having a verdict entered for the defendant on the question of capacity. 8 I turn now to the submissions made in respect of the individual imputations. Imputation 4(i): That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller, the world class swimmer, in such a way as to shatter his career, bring a looming divorce, demolish his confidence and leave him a changed man. 9 The defendant contends that this is a "rolled up" or "composite" imputation containing four separate components and is thus bad in form and impermissible (Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Anor v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448 at 472B: Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 387). The use of the words "a world class swimmer" is an impermissible colourful flourish (Laws v Mirror Newspapers Limited, Hunt J, unreported, 26 July 1983). It is also irrelevant extraneous material and is not material that must be proved to justify the sting of the plaintiff's imputation and is therefore embarrassing (Leslie v Western Broadcasting Pty Limited, Hunt J, unreported, 31 May 1991 at page 4; Mayfield-Smith v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 419 at 420). It is also contended that the imputation is rhetorical (Morris v Newcastle Newspapers [1985] 1 NSWLR 260 at 272). The imputation also does not differ in substance from imputation (iv), below. 10 For the plaintiff it is submitted that the imputation focuses on her behaviour - that is its subject and it is "singular". The imputation defines the meaning of the subject by reference to the consequences produced by her behaviour. It is argued that the defendant chose, in its article about her, to group the consequences together (paragraph 8) and thus the plaintiff complains that the matter imputes that she behaved in such a way towards her husband that she caused all of these consequences together, not separately. "Singular"…"all": what if the defendant proves but two? 11 The words "the world class swimmer" are included, it is said, because they add to the seriousness of the imputation's defamatory sense. If damages are awarded they are assessed by reference, amongst other things, to the seriousness of the imputation. A larger award could be expected for a false imputation alleging a particularly reprehensible act or condition of the plaintiff. The words "the world class swimmer" indicate that what was done was not done just to "any person" but to "a person of special status in society". That special status is referable to the person deserving praise for his own very successful sporting endeavours, the level of that success suggesting that he possesses laudable characteristics which render him particularly undeserving of the behaviour said to have been directed to him by the plaintiff. Her alleged behaviour therefore is so much more reprehensible. It is argued that many members of the public hold sporting champions in especially high esteem and the inclusion of the words do not serve to "obscure" that which the defendant must plead to or justify. 12 The propositions advanced for the plaintiff offend, in my view, the general principles which I have sought to outline above as to extraneous and rhetorical flourishes. They might be available for forensic use in a jury address or point to matters that otherwise, post-jury trial, and subject to the evidence, which may affect damages. Each of the grounds argued for the defendant has been made out and the imputation will be struck out. 13 Imputation 4(ii): That she subjected her husband Scott Miller to a nightmare of emotional and physical abuse. 14 The defendant argues that "emotional" and "physical" abuse constitute two different notions and thus the imputation is "rolled up". This is aggravated by the use of a vague, imprecise term such as "nightmare" and further that the imputation does not differ in substance from imputation (iv) below. 15 Again the plaintiff argues that the behaviour of the plaintiff and its level of reprehensibility are defined by the alleged consequences. Reference is made to the phrase "a nightmare of emotional and physical abuse" in paragraph 9 of the matter complained of. What the plaintiff is really getting at in my view is the single concept of a "nightmare". It is as if the plaintiff has pleaded an imputation that the plaintiff "made her husband's life a nightmare". I would be of the view that the word "nightmare" in its ordinarily understood meaning in the context of the matter complained of and in the context of the imputation so worded would not be vague and imprecise and such an imputation would not be embarrassing. I add, however, that this imputation really points to two separate imputations that arguably are capable of being carried by this matter complained of if properly pleaded. I will say no more than that they would be to the effect that the plaintiff subjected her husband to emotional abuse and the plaintiff subjected her husband to physical abuse. 16 For the reasons advanced by the defendant however, the imputation is embarrassing, bad in form and I will strike it out. 17 Imputation 4(iii); That her cruel and violent behaviour caused a devastating turn around in the affairs of her husband Scott Miller the easy going larrikin of Australian Sport. 18 An interesting issue is whether or not "cruel and violent" constitutes a "rolling up". There are arguments for and against. One can be cruel without being violent though it is difficult to understand being violent without being cruel. That is not the principal vice of this imputation. The use of the phrase "the easy going larrikin of Australian Sport" constitutes what is said to be a colourful flourish and contains irrelevant extraneous material; I agree. Nothing can save this imputation in my view, even by reference to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the matter complained of. The use of the language of the matter complained of, whilst not proscribed, compounds the flaws in this imputation, as it is not, to me, quite clear, what the "devastating turn around in the affairs" really means. Further, I am of the view that the imputation does not differ in substance from imputation 4(i). 19 I will strike out imputation 4(iii). 20 As to imputation 4(iv): That she tormented her husband Scott Miller the easy going larrikin of Australian sport.

It is flawed by the inclusion of the words "the easy going larrikin of Australian sport" and does not differ in substance at least from imputation 4(ii). This imputation will be struck out. 21 As to imputation 4(v): That she was so insecure and selfish that she was unable to consider the needs of her husband Scott Miller during his training for Olympic selection.

This should be read as omitting the words "and selfish". The defendant argues that the phrase "during his training for Olympic selection" constitutes both a colourful flourish and comprises irrelevant extraneous material. For the plaintiff it is argued that that phrase gives content to the type of support that Mr Miller expected and which the plaintiff was supposed to have been unable to give and it is another instance of content being given to the level of the defamatory sting. It is argued that it is more reprehensible not to provide support to a person who is training for the Olympics (being a very laudable goal for which one might expect everyone concerned to make sacrifices) than it is for one who is not training for the Olympics. I reject this submission for the reasons stated. Such observations may be made otherwise than in support of an imputation properly framed in my view. This imputation however does point to a possible third imputation that was mentioned during the course of submissions. There was some conduct on the part of the plaintiff that had some adverse effect on her husband's training for the Olympic games. That conduct, provided there is material in the matter complained of, could be identified and characterised in the appropriate way as to give rise to an imputation separate and different in substance from any other discrete imputations to which I have referred. During the course of submissions reference was made to the word "sabotage". 22 Otherwise I am unpersuaded that imputation (v) can survive and it will be struck out. 23 Imputation 4(vi): That she was unjustifiably suspicious that her husband Scott Miller was having an affair.

Contrary to the submission for the defendant I am not persuaded that the use of the word "unjustifiably", in itself, is vague and imprecise and cognate with the word "misconduct" with which I dealt in Obeid v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1058 at paragraph [11]. I agree with the submission that an imputation that states barely "that the plaintiff was suspicious that her husband was having an affair" is not be capable of being defamatory. What however the plaintiff is pointing to here is something more about her suspicions. Indeed the relevant portion of the matter complained of (paragraphs 30-31) point to an almost irrational obsession. Whilst this is not a "bare" imputation of the bearing of the suspicion of adultery, as framed I hold that it is incapable of being carried. A fair reading of the matter complained of states that the husband had to "justify" his whereabouts. That cannot be understood as rendering the wife's suspicions as "unjustifiable". It points, as I have remarked, to something about the quality of the wife's suspicions. It is that quality which should be captured by the imputation. 24 In respect of imputation 4(vi) I will enter a verdict for the defendant pursuant to s7A(2)(a) of the Defamation Act. 25 Imputation 4(vii): That she was so selfish that she was not willing to give her husband Scott Miller the support she knew he needed in order to qualify as an Olympic athlete.

This imputation does not differ in substance from imputation 4(v). That imputation has gone, however. I do not agree with the submission for the defendant that the inclusion of the phrase "to qualify as an Olympic athlete" constitutes a colourful flourish and comprises irrelevant extraneous material. 26 Imputation 4(vii) will go to the jury. 27 Imputation 4(viii): That she was willing to deliberately inflict emotional hurt on her husband Scott Miller for her own selfish reasons.

This imputation in my view does not differ in substance from that which I have allowed in imputation 4(vii). I have referred above to the availability of an "emotional abuse" imputation. 28 Imputation 4(viii) is struck out. 29 Imputation 4(ix): That she was so insecure that she came to resent the fact that her husband Scott Miller threw all of his energies into his training to qualify for the Olympic Games.

This imputation in my view does not differ in substance from imputation 4(vii). I am not persuaded by the defendant's argument as to the impropriety of using the word "insecure" by repeating it from the matter complained of (compare Wheelan v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1998) 12 NSWLR 148). 30 Imputation 4(ix) will be struck out. 31 Imputation 4(x): That she was willing to destroy the dream marriage between herself and her husband Scott Miller because of her resentment of the lifestyle of an athlete training for Olympic selection.

This is a florid imputation. It does not differ in substance in my view from imputation 4(xi): That she so resented her husband Scott Miller's devotion to his training for Olympic selection that she tried to bring him down.

Any attempt to distinguish between the two on the basis of "willingness to destroy" and "trying to bring him down" (whatever that means) in imputation 4(xi) will save neither. 32 Imputations 4(x) and (xi) will be struck out. 33 As to imputation 4(xii): That she used to look for ways to shatter her husband Scott Miller's confidence and hurt his feelings.

This, as the defendant submits, is a "rolled up" imputation. It does not differ in substance from imputation 4(xiii) or indeed from imputation 4(i). Imputation 4(xiii) is as follows: That she was willing to deliberately inflict emotional hurt on her husband Scott Miller for her own selfish reasons. 34 This series of imputations is seeking to capture something I am sure but has failed to do so. The same consideration applies to imputation 4(xiv) in the following terms: That she was willing, through her unreasonable demands, to risk wrecking her husband Scott Miller's prospects of attaining the Olympic Swimming Team. and 4(xv): That she was unreasonably demanding of her husband Scott Miller.

In relation to the latter I am not persuaded that it is incapable of being defamatory but this series of imputations is groping to say in effect the same thing. 35 Imputations 4(xiii), (xiv) and (xv) are struck out. 36 Imputation 4(xvi): That she failed to contribute her fair share financially in her relationship with her husband Scott Miller although she had ample income of her own from which to contribute.

I agree with the submission for the defendant that this imputation is incapable of being defamatory. It merely states something she did not do and circumstances surrounding her not doing it, namely, having an ample income but not contributing. There is no suggestion of an agreement that she would do so; there is no suggestion of an obligation to do so. There is merely a complaint by the husband that she did not. 37 In relation to imputation 4(xvi) I hold as a matter of law that it is incapable of being defamatory and enter a verdict in favour of the defendant pursuant to s7A(2)(b) of the Defamation Act in relation to this cause of action. 38 Imputation 4(xvii): That she was such an uncaring person that she was willing to party whilst she knew that her husband Scott Miller was suffering emotionally.

This imputation does not differ in substance from imputation 4(i) nor imputation 4(xviii) which is in the following terms: That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller in a selfish, uncaring and unsympathetic manner. 39 Imputation 4(xvii) is "rolled up" and further, does not differ in substance more specifically from imputation 4(xiv) and the similar imputations that are groping for the same concept. Both imputations (xvii) and (xviii) will be struck out. 40 Imputation 4(xix): That she behaved towards her husband Scott Miller in a malicious and spiteful manner.

That imputation in my view is a "rolled up" and "composite" imputation and imputations (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) will be struck out as not differing in substance and as being bad in form for the reasons stated. 41 As the defendant conceded, the matter complained of is disparaging of the plaintiff. It is not disparaging or defamatory of her to the extent of providing nineteen causes of action. There may be four or five to which I have pointed which can be captured by careful, sensible, unrhetorical imputations containing no extraneous flourishes. Their gravity will speak for themselves; the defamatory nature will be gauged by reference to what the imputation is and by reference to the context. Damages will otherwise be a matter for proof in the usual way. 42 The orders are:

Imputations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) are struck out.
Imputation (vi) as a matter of law is incapable of being carried by the matter complained of and in respect of such cause of action I enter a verdict for the defendant pursuant to s7A(2)(a) of the Defamation Act 1974.
Imputation (vii) I hold to be capable of arising and capable of being defamatory.
Imputation (xvi) as a matter of law is incapable of being defamatory and in respect of such cause of action I enter a verdict for the defendant pursuant to s7A(2)(b) of the Defamation Act 1974.
The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs.
The plaintiff has leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim within 21 days of today.
The matter is stood over to the Registrar's Defamation Directions list on 20 September 2002.

SCHEDULE A

[Top left hand corner of front cover next to photograph of Scott Miller seated cross-legged in jeans and T-shirt] SCOTT MILLER'S SECRET TORMENT. Charlotte left me bleeding and in tears.
[Inside cover. Index of features] 10. Violence and abuse: How Scott Miller's wife Charlotte Dawson reduced him to tears.
[Page 11] [Photograph of Rose Fydler] Rose Fydler finds heartbroken former swim star Scott Miller is a man torn apart by the very public ending to his tumultuous and often violent marriage.
Scott Miller's NIGHTMARE marriage.
Charlotte left me bleeding and in tears.
Completely absorbed in the task of fishing stray leaves out of his backyard pool, former Olympic swim star Scott Miller cuts a lonely figure without his familiar dazzling smile.
This is single life for the popular and sociable athlete who isn't, he admits, someone who'd usually embrace solitude.
But events of the past year have shattered his career, brought a looming divorce and demolished his confidence, leaving him a changed man. For Scott, 25, time to soul-search brings refuge from a life turned disastrously upside down.
To outsiders, he had a dream marriage with vivacious ex-model, style editor and socialite Charlotte Dawson, 34. However, Scott says the reality was a nightmare of emotional and physical abuse.
In an exclusive interview with Woman's Day, Scott reveals how his glamorous wife publicly punched and scratched him until he bled, how she threw a vase through a plate-glass window, how she once tried to dump him by fax while he was away at training camp and how she once flew into such a rage, police had to be called.
It was a devastating turnaround in affairs for Scott, the easygoing larrikin of Australian sport. As a world-class swimmer blessed with natural talent, he'd scored an Olympic silver medal in the 100 m butterfly at the 1996 Atlanta games. With the medal came all the trimmings of fame - and he was barely out of his teens.
He also seemed lucky in love following his high-profile wedding in April 1999 to Charlotte, whom he'd met on the Sydney A-list party trial. Their nine-year age gap and contrasting lifestyles didn't seem to stand in the way of their passion for each other, and nor did the media spotlight.
Together they blazed a path through the social pages as a much-photographed couple who often talked publicly of their shared ambition of Scott fulfilling his promise and winning gold in Sydney.
Sadly, that dream is over. The end came one catastrophic weekend in May, when Scott not only missed qualifying for the Olympic team by 0.3 of a second, but also separated from his wife of only 13 months in a now well-documented split.
"I just felt dreadful in all ways," explains a tormented Scott from his former marital home in the Sydney suburb of Birchgrove.
"I was depressed about not making the team, and my relationship with Charlotte had been a roller-coaster from the start.
"Even now," he adds sadly, "I'm still confused about what she wanted out of our life together. I tried to be the husband she needed, but from one day to the next the marriage was on or off, and that was confusing and exhausting.
"Finally, I walked in the door at the day after missing Olympic selection, feeling pretty down, and Charlotte started screaming at me about what an idiot I was. It was the last straw. I just grabbed a bag of clothes and left. I had to end it because I really couldn't take any more."
It's only now that Scott feels able to talk about the misery he endured while training for the Olympics, a tumultuous period from which he has emerged physically, emotionally and financially drained.
According to Scott, theirs was no match made in heaven.
"Charlotte's temper when she didn't get her own way was awesome, and the fights were dramatic," he shudders.
"I'm shocked by what they deteriorated into - the violence is something I have never before experienced. Sometimes I was frightened, and those times I have tried to block from my mind."
But some of those times are proving impossible to forget. He recalls, "Last November, we were at the airport as I was about to leave for the US for a month of altitude training with my Sydney University team-mates. I withdrew some money for the trip and was stunned to see the balance of the account was $8000 lower than a few days before.
"When I questioned Charlotte about where the money had gone, she said she couldn't remember, then retaliated by scratching and punching me in full view of other passengers in the lounge.
"Then she stormed out, leaving me bleeding and in tears. I was so upset to leave on that note. It was a hard goodbye when I was heading overseas and 30 days of training hell. To swim well you can't think, and I had so much on my mind."
In the months of his hardest training regimen, Scott was swimming 60 kilometres per week and sticking to a routine of early nights, no alcohol, and weight-lifting and stretching sessions. He needed to get his body into top shape, so he could challenge fellow butterfly experts Michael Klim and Geoff Huegill. At that time, he reveals, he and Charlotte were living separate lives.
"Charlotte works long hours so I did my own thing," he says. "I don't drive, so I rode my bike to training, shopped for my own food, cooked my own meals.
"Charlotte did help out of when she was around. But I used to drive her up the wall as I'd come home exhausted and just want to sleep. She was frustrated because I couldn't go out with her to many functions so, at that point, we were two incompatible people. Her lack of understanding of an athlete's goals was a crucial factor that ruined our marriage."
Scott says that although his marriage was a mess, his swimming somehow stayed on track. After he won the 200 m butterfly at the World Cup in Australian record time in January, his Olympic chances never looked better and he redoubled his training commitment.
"After a morning workout, I did go to the gym and then the physio or have a massage, arriving home around 11am, exhausted. But Charlotte became suspicious I was having an affair and began to call everyone to check up on me. Justifying my whereabouts all the time was a destructive as hell, and very annoying for my friends.
"One morning I came home to find her hysterical about this. She went berserk and launched into a full-on temper tantrum. After she threw a vase through a plate-glass window, sending glass flying everywhere, she began chasing the around the kitchen. It was terrifying - my sister Nicole was so scared she ran out the front door screaming for help.
"After the police came, Charlotte calmed down, but I was absolutely shattered. I sat in the park, shaking, and smoked a packet of cigarettes. I was so traumatised I didn't get in the water for four days, but I was too numb to talk about it to many people. My coach new, and my closest friends, and all of them worried about what would happen next."
After other traumatic episodes, Scott moved in with team-made Brett Hawke, just three weeks before the Olympic trials.
"Charlotte was so needy," he says. "At every turn I tried to reassure her I loved her. I also had to explain constantly that I was under a lot of pressure and wouldn't mind a bit of support, at least until I made the Olympic team.
"The stress was incredible. Although I was swimming well, the other part of my life was falling apart and would have exploded in my face if I didn't get out."
His wife's attitude, says Scott, was in stark contrast to that of the brightly confident and challenging woman he had met after bombing out at the 1998 Commonwealth Games trials.
"That's when our relationship was at its best. Charlotte motivated need to try again after I've had a gutful of the sport and was going to give it away," he says.
"Then, when she found out how much of the boring lifestyle was required, it all changed. When I started gaining more confidence and getting back to my best and enjoying it all again, it turned around.
"Then she resented the fact that I was throwing all my energies into one thing. She felt neglected, and used to look for ways to try to bring me down. And she's intelligent - she knew how to get at me, by chopping up of the wedding photos and leaving them in the middle of the floor for me to find, or faxing me a letter telling me our marriage was over while I was away at training camp.
"That would hurt," Scott says tearfully. "Everything hurt."
Scott says he can easily see that Charlotte's insecurities could stem from being sexually abused as a child, a trauma she revealed on Fox tel/Network Ten's Beauty and the Beast.
"She opened up and told me that early in our relationship, so I know it causes for pain. She started counselling when she was with me, but you can only help someone who wants help," he says.
"It certainly didn't seem to make a difference to her anger. She always has to be right, and there's an 'older and wiser' component in that. We would argue whenever I stood my ground, although I swallowed my pride many times just to make peace. In the end, I started to feel I wasn't a man anymore."
Scott insists he constantly tried to please Charlotte, but to no avail. During their time together, he says, he sold his "dream pad" in Manly and moved away, at Charlotte's insistence, from his pals, a group she dubbed "the Manly losers".
"I sold my apartment I loved and moved at the other side of Sydney, investing all the savings I ever had from swimming into a million-dollar house."
He goes further, saying, "money was a big sticking point with us - Charlotte earns a six-figure income, but never once did she put one penny into the mortgage repayments I'm still carrying."
The house was put up for auction last month, but was passed in. Now, with his swimming career over - "it hasn't seen the best of me, but I've lost the hunger" - a hurting Scott is attempting to rebuild his life. Opportunities beckon but nothing in the romance department appeals.
As for brunette Kristy Moffat, with whom he was seen recently, Scott terms their relationship "nothing serious".
"I couldn't give myself emotionally to anyone right now, after what I've been through. I feel numb, and I need time to you myself to recover," he says.
And Scott has just one rule for his new life - to proceed with caution when reading Sydney newspapers. "Some days I'm scared to pick them up and see what Charlotte's doing," he says.
"I've read she's sold the engagement ring and thrown the wedding ring in the river. And it killed me how quickly she got a boyfriend - she was pictured in the paper within four days after we split.
"Then, being Charlotte, she couldn't help but rub it in - she rang my best buddy, telling him, 'Now I know how it feels to be loved by a real man.' That tore right to my heart," Scott admits. "Because once, I did love her so much."
[Page 10] [Large photograph of Scott Miller seated on bed wearing T-shirt and jeans].
[Page 11] [Photograph of Scott Miller and Charlotte Dawson in wedding clothes facing camera] The couple married in April last year.
[Page 11] [Photograph of Scott Miller standing by pool in back of house barefoot in jeans and T-shirt] Scott now lives alone in their former marital home.
[Pages 12 and 13] [Large caption under photographs spread across both pages] 'She went berserk and threw a vase through a plate-glass window. IT WAS TERRIFYING. After the police came, Charlotte calmed down'.
[Page 12] [Photograph of Scott Miller barefoot in jeans and T-shirt seated playing with dog swimming pool in back of house] Scott finds solace these days with Banshee, his Siberian husky.
[Page 13] [Photograph of Charlotte Dawson and Scott Miller standing facing camera] The A-list couple met on the party circuit.
[Page 13] [Photograph of Scott Miller swimming butterfly] After missing out on the Olympics, Scott has quit swimming.
[Page 13] [Photograph of Charlotte Dawson with unidentified man dressed as red Indian biting her boot whilst others look on] Party-girl Charlotte enjoys being the center of attention at this year's Mardi Gras, even as her marriage was on the brink.
[Page 13] [Photograph Charlotte Dawson being kissed on cheek by unidentified man dressed as a red Indian].
[Page 13] [Photograph of Scott Miller and Kristy Moffat at a party] Out with his friend Kristy Moffat.

Last Modified: 09/10/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (26 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (1)