Branch v Papyrus Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1879

Branch v Papyrus Australia Ltd [2019] FCA 1879

The amended statement of claim is struck out in its entirety with leave to re-plead because the pleadings are confusing, embarrassing, and fail to properly particularise imputations, publication, extrinsic facts, addressees, and loss as required by the rules and established defamation pleading principles. Summary judgment is not granted as the applicant, who is self-represented, may be able to properly plead a cause of action if given another opportunity.

Parties
Applicant: Allan Charles Branch; First Respondent: Papyrus Australia Ltd (ABN 63 110 868 409); Second Respondent: Edward Michael Byrt; Third Respondent: Vincent Peter Rigano; Fourth Respondent: Andrew Ford; Fifth Respondent: Ramy Azer; Sixth Respondent: Grant Thornton; Seventh Respondent: Sheenagh Edwards
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application – Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Amended statement of claim struck out with leave to re-plead; summary judgment dismissed; costs of interlocutory application ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Application, Publication, Imputations, Damages
Defamation Practice and Procedure Pleadings Summary Judgment Strike Out Application Publication Imputations Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Charles Branch

Applicant

Papyrus Australia Ltd (ABN 63 110 868 409)

First Respondent

Edward Michael Byrt

Second Respondent

Vincent Peter Rigano

Third Respondent

Andrew Ford

Fourth Respondent

Ramy Azer

Fifth Respondent

Grant Thornton

Sixth Respondent

Sheenagh Edwards

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application – Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's amended statement of claim should be struck out as embarrassing, unclear, and non-compliant with pleading rules
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim sufficiently pleads imputations, publication, extrinsic facts, and relevant loss
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted in favour of the respondents on the publication of 'the Material'

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim is struck out in its entirety with leave to re-plead because the pleadings are confusing, embarrassing, and fail to properly particularise imputations, publication, extrinsic facts, addressees, and loss as required by the rules and established defamation pleading principles. Summary judgment is not granted as the applicant, who is self-represented, may be able to properly plead a cause of action if given another opportunity.

Court Disposition

Amended statement of claim struck out with leave to re-plead; summary judgment dismissed; costs of interlocutory application ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents' application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • The amended statement of claim filed 5 July 2019 is struck out.