Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 191

Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 191

The application to strike out paragraphs 37 to 47 was rejected because Dr Daniels' objections required determination of factual disputes or matters for trial, the alleged investigation outcomes did not preclude reliance on the underlying facts, the particulars represented the best particulars presently available on the defendants' instructions, and allegations of malice, dishonesty or bad faith were not a basis for strike out under r 14.28 at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Interlocutory Notice of Motion to Strike Out Paragraphs 37 to 47 of the Defence
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to strike out paragraphs 37 to 47 of the defence rejected.
Legal Topics
['defence of Truth' 'adequacy of Particulars' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'qualified Privilege' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defence of Truth' 'adequacy of Particulars' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'qualified Privilege' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 14.28']

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 / Plaintiff's Interlocutory Notice of Motion to Strike Out Paragraphs 37 to 47 of the Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 37 to 47 of the defence should be struck out under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.28.' 'Whether alleged falsity, prior investigation outcomes, generality of particulars, or allegations of malice, dishonesty or bad faith justified striking out the pleaded defence or particulars.' 'Whether the defendants had provided the best particulars presently available for the defence of truth.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out paragraphs 37 to 47 was rejected because Dr Daniels' objections required determination of factual disputes or matters for trial, the alleged investigation outcomes did not preclude reliance on the underlying facts, the particulars represented the best particulars presently available on the defendants' instructions, and allegations of malice, dishonesty or bad faith were not a basis for strike out under r 14.28 at this stage.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to strike out paragraphs 37 to 47 of the defence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The application is rejected.']