Molan v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Limited [2021] FCA 336

Molan v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Limited [2021] FCA 336

With the respondent’s concession regarding certain oral communications, the applicant’s contested interrogatories of the respondent are not necessary and are not allowed. The respondent is entitled to discovery of direct or indirect communications between the applicant and her employer relating to the matters complained of, as the applicant has put those communications in issue, but discovery is limited as set out in the reasons. The respondent’s disputed interrogatories of the applicant are not necessary because the applicant will give evidence and can be cross-examined on those matters.

Parties
Applicant: Erin Molan; Respondent: Dailymail.com Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application—discovery and Interrogatories
Outcome
Orders regarding interrogatories and discovery made; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Interrogatories, Honest Opinion Defence, Justification Defence, Contextual Truth, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Discovery Interrogatories Honest Opinion Defence Justification Defence Contextual Truth Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erin Molan

Applicant

Dailymail.com Australia Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application—discovery and Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant's disputed interrogatories of the respondent are necessary and sufficiently focused on the pleaded defence;
  2. 2 Whether categories of discovery sought by the respondent from the applicant are too broad or uncertain;
  3. 3 Whether respondent's interrogatories of the applicant are necessary for resolution of the issues;

Ratio Decidendi

With the respondent’s concession regarding certain oral communications, the applicant’s contested interrogatories of the respondent are not necessary and are not allowed. The respondent is entitled to discovery of direct or indirect communications between the applicant and her employer relating to the matters complained of, as the applicant has put those communications in issue, but discovery is limited as set out in the reasons. The respondent’s disputed interrogatories of the applicant are not necessary because the applicant will give evidence and can be cross-examined on those matters.

Court Disposition

Orders regarding interrogatories and discovery made; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Applicant's disputed interrogatories of the respondent not allowed (except as qualified by concession).
  • Applicant's disputed discovery of the respondent allowed (with qualifications).