Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 814

Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 814

The plaintiff's particulars of express malice and particulars of aggravated damages, except the first aggravated damages particular that the plaintiff knew the imputations were false, did not disclose the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon and were largely conclusory, rhetorical or meaningless. They therefore failed to inform the defendant of the case to be met and were embarrassing, so they were struck out with leave to provide proper particulars.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, Defamation List / Defendant's Strike Out Application Concerning the Plaintiff's Particulars of Express Malice and Aggravated Damages After Jury Findings That the Defendant Defamed the Plaintiff
Outcome
Defendant's application granted substantially; particulars of express malice and aggravated damages, except aggravated damages particular 1, struck out with leave to amend; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'particulars of Express Malice' 'particulars of Aggravated Damages' 'qualified Privilege' 'truth' 'comment' 'unlikelihood of Harm']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out Application' 'particulars of Express Malice' 'particulars of Aggravated Damages' 'qualified Privilege' 'truth' 'comment' 'unlikelihood of Harm']

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 Proceeding in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, Defamation List / Defendant's Strike Out Application Concerning the Plaintiff's Particulars of Express Malice and Aggravated Damages After Jury Findings That the Defendant Defamed the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's particulars of express malice adequately identified the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon rather than merely stating conclusions." "Whether the plaintiff's particulars of aggravated damages, other than the plaintiff's knowledge of falsity, adequately identified the conduct and matters relied upon." 'Whether the particulars were embarrassing and should be struck out with leave to amend.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's particulars of express malice and particulars of aggravated damages, except the first aggravated damages particular that the plaintiff knew the imputations were false, did not disclose the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon and were largely conclusory, rhetorical or meaningless. They therefore failed to inform the defendant of the case to be met and were embarrassing, so they were struck out with leave to provide proper particulars.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application granted substantially; particulars of express malice and aggravated damages, except aggravated damages particular 1, struck out with leave to amend; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The particulars in paragraph 2 of the Reply filed on 18 June 2000 are struck out.' 'The plaintiff has leave to file an Amended Reply within 14 days providing particulars of the allegations of express malice in accordance with these reasons.' 'The particulars in the Third Amended Statement of Claim of Aggravated...