Barach v University of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1054

Barach v University of New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1054

Parts of the amended defence by the first defendant (University) were found objectionable due to lack of clarity, insufficient particularity, or failing to identify the facts and circumstances said to support serious allegations against the plaintiff. The Court ordered that objectionable paragraphs be struck out, various further particulars be provided by a stated date, and gave leave for the defence to be amended in certain respects. 90 percent of the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis were ordered against the first defendant, payable forthwith.

Parties
Plaintiff: Dr Paul Randall Barach; First Defendant: The University of New South Wales; Third Defendant: Professor Raphael Hilary Grzebieta; Fourth Defendant: Assoc Professor Andrew McIntosh; Fifth Defendant: David Michael Ward; Sixth Defendant: Professor Richard Henry; Seventh Defendant: Harold Karaka; Eighth Defendant: Lori Mooren
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence and for Further Particulars
Outcome
Parts of Amended Defence struck out; particulars to be provided; costs orders made
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Particulars, Striking Out, Case Management, Discovery
Civil Procedure Defamation Pleadings Particulars Striking Out Case Management Discovery

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Paul Randall Barach

Plaintiff

The University of New South Wales

First Defendant

Professor Raphael Hilary Grzebieta

Third Defendant

Assoc Professor Andrew McIntosh

Fourth Defendant

David Michael Ward

Fifth Defendant

Professor Richard Henry

Sixth Defendant

Harold Karaka

Seventh Defendant

Lori Mooren

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence and for Further Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the amended defence are objectionable in form and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether further particulars should be ordered
  3. 3 Appropriate costs orders in respect of the application

Ratio Decidendi

Parts of the amended defence by the first defendant (University) were found objectionable due to lack of clarity, insufficient particularity, or failing to identify the facts and circumstances said to support serious allegations against the plaintiff. The Court ordered that objectionable paragraphs be struck out, various further particulars be provided by a stated date, and gave leave for the defence to be amended in certain respects. 90 percent of the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis were ordered against the first defendant, payable forthwith.

Court Disposition

Parts of Amended Defence struck out; particulars to be provided; costs orders made

Orders

  • Specified paragraphs and subparagraphs of the first defendant's amended defence are struck out.
  • The first defendant is granted leave to replead the struck out matters by 13 September 2013.