GRIFFITH & ORS v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION & ORS [2003] NSWSC 1244

GRIFFITH & ORS v AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION & ORS [2003] NSWSC 1244

The defendants were not excused from filing defences merely because their motion sought to strike out the additional deceit and injurious falsehood claims. The court considered that a defence could deny facts or raise legal issues for separate determination, that compliance with the defence-filing order would more efficiently progress the litigation, that any prejudice could be addressed by costs, and that the pleaded matters did not impose a great burden on the defendants in obtaining instructions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings With Additional Causes of Action in Deceit and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Compliance With Consent Orders for Filing Defences Pending a Strike Out Motion
Outcome
Order 1 in the short minutes was declined; order 6 of the consent orders was varied to require the defendants to file defences by 5pm on Friday 6 February 2004; other orders in the short minutes were made; costs of the day were to abide the outcome of the 18 November 2003 motion; the matter was listed before...
Legal Topics
['filing of Defence' 'consent Orders' 'strike Out Motion' 'separate Question of Law' 'deceit' 'injurious Falsehood']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['filing of Defence' 'consent Orders' 'strike Out Motion' 'separate Question of Law' 'deceit' 'injurious Falsehood']

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 With Additional Causes of Action in Deceit and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Compliance With Consent Orders for Filing Defences Pending a Strike Out Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be required to file defences to the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim notwithstanding a pending motion to strike out the deceit and injurious falsehood causes of action.' 'Whether order 6 of the consent orders should be varied to extend the time for the defendants to file their defences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not excused from filing defences merely because their motion sought to strike out the additional deceit and injurious falsehood claims. The court considered that a defence could deny facts or raise legal issues for separate determination, that compliance with the defence-filing order would more efficiently progress the litigation, that any prejudice could be addressed by costs, and that the pleaded matters did not impose a great burden on the defendants in obtaining instructions.

Court Disposition

Order 1 in the short minutes was declined; order 6 of the consent orders was varied to require the defendants to file defences by 5pm on Friday 6 February 2004; other orders in the short minutes were made; costs of the day were to abide the outcome of the 18 November 2003 motion; the matter was listed before...

Orders

  • ['I decline to make order 1 in the short minutes of order handed up today but instead vary order 6 of the consent orders made by me on 27 October 2003 to require the defendants to file their defences by 5pm on Friday 6 February 2004.' 'I make orders 2, 3 and 4 in the short minutes of order handed up today.' 'The...