Howes v ACP Magazines Limited [2013] NSWSC 1836

Howes v ACP Magazines Limited [2013] NSWSC 1836

The disputed interrogatories in 13, 20(b), 46 and 49 concerned incidents or issues squarely raised by the pleaded particulars of the defence of justification and were reasonably necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. The plaintiff's objection that the questions went beyond the particulars was rejected because particulars identify topics for evidence and do not confine proof to the precise pleaded words. The pending exchange of unverified witness statements did not displace the utility of verified interrogatory answers, and the plaintiff's delay objection failed where the difficulty arose from his selective refusal to answer. Interrogatory 29(b), however, was too general and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for Answers to Certain Interrogatories Refused by the Plaintiff
Outcome
Application allowed in part; plaintiff ordered to provide further answers to specified interrogatories and to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'justification Defence' 'truth Defence' 'particulars' 'witness Statements' 'costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'justification Defence' 'truth Defence' 'particulars' 'witness Statements' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for Answers to Certain Interrogatories Refused by the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be required to provide further answers to disputed interrogatories in defamation proceedings close to trial.' 'Whether the disputed interrogatories were reasonably necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or were a fishing expedition beyond the pleaded particulars of the truth defence.' 'Whether the existence of orders for witness statements meant that further answers to interrogatories were unnecessary or wasteful.' 'Whether alleged delay and proximity to trial made it unfair to require further answers.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed interrogatories in 13, 20(b), 46 and 49 concerned incidents or issues squarely raised by the pleaded particulars of the defence of justification and were reasonably necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. The plaintiff's objection that the questions went beyond the particulars was rejected because particulars identify topics for evidence and do not confine proof to the precise pleaded words. The pending exchange of unverified witness statements did not displace the utility of verified interrogatory answers, and the plaintiff's delay objection failed where the difficulty arose from his selective refusal to answer. Interrogatory 29(b), however, was too general and...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; plaintiff ordered to provide further answers to specified interrogatories and to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff provide further answers to questions 13(a), (d)-(g), (k) and (l); 20(b)(i) to (iii); 46(a) and (b); and 49(a) and (b) within 14 days.' "The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the application heard and determined today."]