B1 v B2 [2017] NSWDC 252

B1 v B2 [2017] NSWDC 252

The defendant's Amended Defence was discursive, made serious allegations, and failed to plead any defence, including apparent defences of truth and qualified privilege, in accordance with the pleading rules. Although the defendant was a litigant in person and had already been warned of the defects and given an opportunity to amend, the court granted one further opportunity to replead, with costs, because the plaintiff's application was consented to on that basis. Given the existence of related family law proceedings and the risks associated with the social media publications, the court also referred the reasons to the Registrars of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and Family Court...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Amended Defence With Leave to Replead
Outcome
Amended Defence struck out with leave to replead; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; judgment referred to Federal Circuit Court and Family Court registrars.
Legal Topics
['publication on Facebook Concerning Alleged Domestic Violence' 'strike Out of Defence' 'leave to Amend Pleading' 'justification and Qualified Privilege Pleadings' 'family Law Act Publication Restrictions' 'referral of Judgment to Federal Circuit Court and Family Court Registrars' 'costs of Amendment and Application']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'family Law'] ['publication on Facebook Concerning Alleged Domestic Violence' 'strike Out of Defence' 'leave to Amend Pleading' 'justification and Qualified Privilege Pleadings' 'family Law Act Publication Restrictions' 'referral of Judgment to Federal Circuit Court and Family Court Registrars' 'costs of Amendment and 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 / Application to Strike Out Amended Defence With Leave to Replead

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's Amended Defence should be struck out for failure to comply with pleading rules." 'Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file a further amended defence despite defective pleadings and prior opportunities.' 'Whether concerns about possible breaches of s 121 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and impacts on family law proceedings warranted referral of the judgment to the relevant registrars.' 'Who should pay the costs of the application and amendment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's Amended Defence was discursive, made serious allegations, and failed to plead any defence, including apparent defences of truth and qualified privilege, in accordance with the pleading rules. Although the defendant was a litigant in person and had already been warned of the defects and given an opportunity to amend, the court granted one further opportunity to replead, with costs, because the plaintiff's application was consented to on that basis. Given the existence of related family law proceedings and the risks associated with the social media publications, the court also referred the reasons to the Registrars of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and Family Court...

Court Disposition

Amended Defence struck out with leave to replead; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; judgment referred to Federal Circuit Court and Family Court registrars.

Orders

  • ['On the application of the plaintiff, which is consented to by the defendant, the Amended Defence filed on 9 August 2017 is struck out with leave to replead.' 'The repleaded defence must be filed by 13 October 2017 and, if the defects in the current pleadings are not cured, may be subject to summary dismissal and...