Blake-Dyke v Bayard [2017] NSWSC 1474

Blake-Dyke v Bayard [2017] NSWSC 1474

The particulars in the proposed amended defence gave adequately specific notice of the incidents relied on and were capable of proving the truth of the pleaded imputations. To the extent any further specificity was lacking, the defendant had provided the best particulars he could in light of the events. Questions such as whether malice or mental disturbance could be inferred from the alleged conduct were matters for the tribunal of fact, not grounds to strike out the particulars at the interlocutory stage. The plaintiff's application was unreasonable and warranted an order for the defendant's costs payable forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Plaintiff to Have Particulars of the Defence of Truth Struck Out
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to have the particulars of truth struck out refused; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application, such costs to be assessable forthwith.
Legal Topics
['defence of Truth' 'particulars' 'interlocutory Application' 'costs Payable Forthwith']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defence of Truth' 'particulars' 'interlocutory Application' 'costs Payable Forthwith']

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 / Interlocutory Application by the Plaintiff to Have Particulars of the Defence of Truth Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's particulars in support of the defence of truth were sufficiently specific to put the plaintiff on notice of the case he had to meet." 'Whether the particulars were capable of proving the imputations sought to be justified by the defendant.' "Whether the plaintiff's interlocutory application was made unreasonably so as to warrant costs payable forthwith."]

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars in the proposed amended defence gave adequately specific notice of the incidents relied on and were capable of proving the truth of the pleaded imputations. To the extent any further specificity was lacking, the defendant had provided the best particulars he could in light of the events. Questions such as whether malice or mental disturbance could be inferred from the alleged conduct were matters for the tribunal of fact, not grounds to strike out the particulars at the interlocutory stage. The plaintiff's application was unreasonable and warranted an order for the defendant's costs payable forthwith.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to have the particulars of truth struck out refused; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application, such costs to be assessable forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application is refused." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the application, such costs to be assessable forthwith."]