PK v BV [2008] NSWDC 292

PK v BV [2008] NSWDC 292

The defence was struck out because the defendant failed to appear and, in any event, the pleaded defences were substantially flawed: the truth particulars fell far short of justifying imputations alleging criminal dishonesty, contextual truth relied on vague and unspecified contextual knowledge rather than proper contextual imputations, the triviality plea was confused, and the offer to make amends was out of time and did not comply with s 15 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings for Damages Arising From Two Slanders / Application by the Plaintiffs to Strike Out the Defendant's Defence on the Listed Hearing Date
Outcome
Defendant's defence struck out and dismissed; judgment could be entered for the plaintiffs with damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
['defences of Truth and Contextual Truth' 'inadequate Particulars' 'offer to Make Amends' 'triviality or Unlikelihood of Harm' 'strike Out of Defence' 'non Publication and Pseudonym Orders']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defences of Truth and Contextual Truth' 'inadequate Particulars' 'offer to Make Amends' 'triviality or Unlikelihood of Harm' 'strike Out of Defence' 'non Publication and Pseudonym Orders']

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 for Damages Arising From Two Slanders / Application by the Plaintiffs to Strike Out the Defendant's Defence on the Listed Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's pleaded defences of truth and contextual truth were adequately particularised and capable of answering the defamatory imputations." 'Whether the pleaded defence of triviality or unlikelihood of harm was properly pleaded.' "Whether the defendant's offer to make amends complied with s 15 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and could be relied on despite being out of time." "Whether the defendant's non-appearance and the defects in the defence justified striking out the defence in its entirety."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defence was struck out because the defendant failed to appear and, in any event, the pleaded defences were substantially flawed: the truth particulars fell far short of justifying imputations alleging criminal dishonesty, contextual truth relied on vague and unspecified contextual knowledge rather than proper contextual imputations, the triviality plea was confused, and the offer to make amends was out of time and did not comply with s 15 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Defendant's defence struck out and dismissed; judgment could be entered for the plaintiffs with damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • ["Defendant's defence is struck out and dismissed." "The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs." 'Until further order, the names of the parties and any identifying factors are not to be published, any publication in this court is to use the pseudonyms PK for the first plaintiff, AK for the second plaintiff and...