Gair v Greenwood [2019] NSWDC 725

Gair v Greenwood [2019] NSWDC 725

The defence was struck out because the defendant failed to comply with the self-executing order to provide verified answers to interrogatories and discovery, his late answers were manifestly inadequate, he had a prolonged history of non-compliance despite pro bono assistance, adjournments and extensions, he had indicated he would not participate in effective case management, and the continued conduct of the proceedings would create unfairness to the plaintiffs and unacceptable strain on court resources, particularly given the prospect of a jury trial and lack of proper particularisation of the pleaded defences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiffs' Application to Strike Out the Defence Following Non Compliance With a Self Executing Order
Outcome
Defence struck out; verdict and judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages, including any aggravated damages, to be assessed; injunction application fixed for later hearing.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Defence' 'self Executing Orders' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'self Represented Litigant' 'interrogatories and Discovery' 'case Management' 'jury Trial in Defamation' 'injunction Application']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['strike Out of Defence' 'self Executing Orders' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'self Represented Litigant' 'interrogatories and Discovery' 'case Management' 'jury Trial in Defamation' 'injunction Application']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiffs' Application to Strike Out the Defence Following Non Compliance With a Self Executing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's defence should be struck out for failure to comply with a self-executing order requiring verified answers to interrogatories and discovery by 10 October 2019." "Whether the defendant's history of non-compliance and refusal to participate in case management justified entry of judgment for the plaintiffs with damages to be assessed." 'Whether further opportunities to comply should be afforded to a self-represented defendant in a defamation proceeding.' "Whether the plaintiffs' application for an injunction should be fixed for hearing after judgment on liability."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defence was struck out because the defendant failed to comply with the self-executing order to provide verified answers to interrogatories and discovery, his late answers were manifestly inadequate, he had a prolonged history of non-compliance despite pro bono assistance, adjournments and extensions, he had indicated he would not participate in effective case management, and the continued conduct of the proceedings would create unfairness to the plaintiffs and unacceptable strain on court resources, particularly given the prospect of a jury trial and lack of proper particularisation of the pleaded defences.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out; verdict and judgment entered for the plaintiffs with damages, including any aggravated damages, to be assessed; injunction application fixed for later hearing.

Orders

  • ['The defence filed on 15 August 2017 is struck out.' 'Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, with damages (including any aggravated damages) to be assessed.' 'These orders to be entered forthwith.' "The matter be fixed for hearing of the plaintiffs' application on Wednesday 11 December 2019 at 9:30am." 'The...