Le Mottee v Dingle [2017] NSWSC 1270

Le Mottee v Dingle [2017] NSWSC 1270

Because there was a real issue whether the second plaintiff was an excluded corporation under s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the defendants were entitled to verified particulars concerning the director's position, including whether he received wages, salary or director's fees. Requiring those particulars, and further clarification of the proposed further amended pleading, was a sensible course to facilitate determination of the issue consistently with the overriding purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Further Particulars and Directions
Outcome
Directions made; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the day; proceedings stood over to 4 August 2017.
Legal Topics
['corporate Plaintiff Standing to Sue for Defamation' 'excluded Corporation Under S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'further Particulars' 'verified Response' 'separate Question' 'overriding Purpose']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['corporate Plaintiff Standing to Sue for Defamation' 'excluded Corporation Under S 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'further Particulars' 'verified Response' 'separate Question' 'overriding Purpose']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Further Particulars and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second plaintiff had adequately particularised its contention that it was an excluded corporation within the meaning of s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the defendants were entitled to verified information about whether the first plaintiff, as director of the second plaintiff, received wages, salary or director's fees from the second plaintiff." 'Whether the plaintiffs should clarify the basis on which the second defendant was said to be responsible for further circulation of the alleged defamation pleaded in paragraph 20 of the proposed further amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the allegation that the corporate plaintiff suffered hurt and embarrassment in paragraph 19 of the proposed further amended statement of claim was deficient.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was a real issue whether the second plaintiff was an excluded corporation under s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the defendants were entitled to verified particulars concerning the director's position, including whether he received wages, salary or director's fees. Requiring those particulars, and further clarification of the proposed further amended pleading, was a sensible course to facilitate determination of the issue consistently with the overriding purpose.

Court Disposition

Directions made; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the day; proceedings stood over to 4 August 2017.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant is directed to write to the plaintiffs within seven days raising any objection in respect of paragraph 19 of the proposed further amended statement of claim.' 'The plaintiffs are directed, within a further 14 days thereafter, to provide a verified response to question 1 in the letter dated 26...