Gmitrovic v Department of Defence [2015] NSWSC 840

Gmitrovic v Department of Defence [2015] NSWSC 840

Although the number of prior amendment attempts meant it was open to conclude that enough was enough, the dictates of justice did not require refusal solely on that basis because the plaintiff was self-represented, had consistently sought to plead the same essential defamatory meaning, had generally complied with directions, and had genuinely attempted to respond to objections. On the merits, the proposed imputations were capable of being defamatory or conveyed: in context, the imputation concerning transmitting and receiving unsolicited data was capable of being defamatory, and the Department's reasons were capable of being understood as going beyond mere suspicion so that the issues...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion by Plaintiff for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to file fourth amended statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'self Represented Litigant' 'imputations' 'whether Imputations Capable of Being Conveyed']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'self Represented Litigant' 'imputations' 'whether Imputations Capable of Being Conveyed']

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 / Notice of Motion by Plaintiff for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to file a fourth amended statement of claim should be refused because of the number of prior amendment applications.' 'Whether the proposed imputations were capable of being defamatory and capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of.' 'Whether imputations of guilt, rather than suspicion, were reasonably capable of being conveyed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the number of prior amendment attempts meant it was open to conclude that enough was enough, the dictates of justice did not require refusal solely on that basis because the plaintiff was self-represented, had consistently sought to plead the same essential defamatory meaning, had generally complied with directions, and had genuinely attempted to respond to objections. On the merits, the proposed imputations were capable of being defamatory or conveyed: in context, the imputation concerning transmitting and receiving unsolicited data was capable of being defamatory, and the Department's reasons were capable of being understood as going beyond mere suspicion so that the issues...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to file fourth amended statement of claim.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiff to file the fourth amended statement of claim served in draft in support of his notice of motion filed 11 June 2015.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment.' 'The fourth amended statement of claim be filed and served by 4pm 30 June 2015.' 'The...