Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA 284

Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA 284

Paragraphs 7-9 were otiose because the applicant had accepted they were irrelevant to the ADJR claim. The misfeasance pleading identified public officers, acts in purported discharge of office, malice and loss, but was deficient because it did not identify the particular words or meanings of the communications;...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth), With Claims for Defamation and Misfeasance in Public Office and a Proposed Negligence Amendment / Interlocutory Determination of Strike Out, Leave to Amend, Particulars and Discovery Issues
Outcome
Further particulars were ordered for the misfeasance in public office allegations and leave to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed negligence claim was refused.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'sex Discrimination Complaint Investigation' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'defamatory Publications' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'further and Better Particulars' 'discovery' 'strike Out of Pleadings']
['administrative Law' 'discrimination Law' 'torts' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review Under the ADJR Act' 'sex Discrimination Complaint Investigation' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'defamatory Publications' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'further and Better Particulars' 'discovery' 'strike Out of Pleadings']

Source-derived case record

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

Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth), With Claims for Defamation and Misfeasance in Public Office and a Proposed Negligence Amendment / Interlocutory Determination of Strike Out, Leave to Amend, Particulars and Discovery Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 7-9 and 34-39 of the statement of claim should be struck out.' 'Whether the applicant should be given leave to amend the statement of claim to add negligence allegations.' 'Whether further particulars should be ordered for the misfeasance in public office claim.' 'Whether further discovery should be ordered or whether discovery obligations remained unfulfilled.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 7-9 were otiose because the applicant had accepted they were irrelevant to the ADJR claim. The misfeasance pleading identified public officers, acts in purported discharge of office, malice and loss, but was deficient because it did not identify the particular words or meanings of the communications; rather than strike out that claim, the Court ordered detailed particulars. Leave to amend to add negligence allegations was refused because the proposed pleading was untenable as expressed, lacked necessary particularity, failed to identify clearly which respondent did what and how the alleged breaches caused loss, and was embarrassing and prejudicial. No further discovery was...

Court Disposition

Further particulars were ordered for the misfeasance in public office allegations and leave to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed negligence claim was refused.

Orders

  • ['The applicant by no later than 30 April 2004 file and serve a document providing specified particulars in respect of 12 identified communications or publications by the third, fourth and fifth respondents, including whether statements were oral or in writing, identifying details of documents or occasions, authors,...