Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1934

In proceedings for defamation, verification of pleadings is not required under r 14.22(1), and there is no basis for departing from the default rule unless extraordinary circumstances exist; dispute over factual pleadings is ordinary and does not warrant verification in this case.

Parties: Plaintiff: Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels; First Defendant: State of New South Wales; Second Defendant: David Tooney; Third Defendant: Louise Manwaring
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 21 November 2014
Procedural Posture: Defamation / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome: application refused
Legal Topics: Verification of Pleadings, Further Particulars, Truth Defence

Defamation Civil Procedure Verification of Pleadings Further Particulars Truth Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Dr Christopher Sydney Daniels

Plaintiff

State of New South Wales

First Defendant

David Tooney

Second Defendant

Louise Manwaring

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

1 Should defendants be required to verify their defence in a defamation proceeding under r 14.22(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005?
2 Are the particulars provided in support of the truth defence sufficient?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

Defendants to provide further and better particulars of the facts, matters and circumstances relied upon in support of the truth defence.