Adeang v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2016] FCA 1599

Adeang v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2016] FCA 1599

The respondent's new plea of justification to imputations (a) to (d) was not responsive to the applicant's new imputations (e) and (f), relied on factual material available when the original defence was filed, and was unsupported by an adequate explanation from the respondent itself for not pleading it earlier. Contextual imputations 1 and 3 were so vague and imprecise that they were embarrassing and could not be saved by particulars. The impugned pleas and particulars therefore had to be struck out, with leave only to replead justification of imputations 6(e)-(f) and 8(e)-(f) and the second contextual imputation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence and Contextual Imputations
Outcome
The applicant's interlocutory application substantially succeeded; parts of the respondent's defence and particulars were struck out and the respondent was ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'strike Out Application' 'amendment of Defence' 'case Management']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'strike Out Application' 'amendment of Defence' 'case Management']

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 / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Parts of the Defence and Contextual Imputations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order for filing a defence or r 16.55(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 permitted the respondent to add new defences not previously pleaded to maintained claims.' 'Whether the respondent should have leave to rely on a new plea of justification to imputations (a) to (d).' 'Whether contextual imputations 1 and 3 should be struck out as vague, imprecise or embarrassing.' 'What conditions, if any, should be imposed on any amendments or raising of new issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's new plea of justification to imputations (a) to (d) was not responsive to the applicant's new imputations (e) and (f), relied on factual material available when the original defence was filed, and was unsupported by an adequate explanation from the respondent itself for not pleading it earlier. Contextual imputations 1 and 3 were so vague and imprecise that they were embarrassing and could not be saved by particulars. The impugned pleas and particulars therefore had to be struck out, with leave only to replead justification of imputations 6(e)-(f) and 8(e)-(f) and the second contextual imputation.

Court Disposition

The applicant's interlocutory application substantially succeeded; parts of the respondent's defence and particulars were struck out and the respondent was ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['In the defence filed on 14 November 2016, paragraph 11(a) be struck out.' "The respondent's first and third contextual imputations pleaded in paragraph 11(b) be struck out." "The particulars in support of the imputations and contextual imputations be struck out save only those particulars that support the...