Bryan Francis McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 485

Bryan Francis McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 485

The Court did not need finally to decide whether the additional allegations were material facts requiring amendment or merely particulars, because the defendants accepted that amendment would be convenient and the plaintiff did not persuade the Court that the allegations, if pleaded, would be liable to be struck out. The allegations were sufficiently contained for trial management, were not shown to cause undue delay, and were not so irrelevant to the pleaded imputations and truth defence as to justify precluding reliance on them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application by Defendants for Leave to Amend Their Defence
Outcome
Leave granted to the defendants to amend their defence.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'truth Defence' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'amendment of Defence' 'strike Out']
['procedure' 'defamation'] ['pleadings' 'truth Defence' 'material Facts and Particulars' 'amendment of Defence' 'strike Out']

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 / Application by Defendants for Leave to Amend Their Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were required formally to plead additional allegations relied on for the truth defence rather than provide them as additional particulars by letter.' 'Whether the additional allegations, if pleaded, would be liable to be struck out under rule 14.28 of the UCPR.' 'Whether the defendants should have leave to amend the defence to include the additional allegations contained in their letter dated 24 March 2011.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court did not need finally to decide whether the additional allegations were material facts requiring amendment or merely particulars, because the defendants accepted that amendment would be convenient and the plaintiff did not persuade the Court that the allegations, if pleaded, would be liable to be struck out. The allegations were sufficiently contained for trial management, were not shown to cause undue delay, and were not so irrelevant to the pleaded imputations and truth defence as to justify precluding reliance on them.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the defendants to amend their defence.

Orders

  • ['The defendants have leave to amend the defence to include the additional allegations contained in their letter dated 24 March 2011.' 'There is no costs order as to the costs of the application.' 'The defendants are to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.']