Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357

The particulars of the justification defence were so vague, imprecise, and lacking in specificity that they failed to fairly inform the applicant of the case to meet, and were not capable of proving the substantial truth of any of the pleaded imputations. Accordingly, those particulars and the justification defence were struck out under r 16.21(1). The subpoena issued to the Sydney Theatre Company was set aside for want of a legitimate forensic purpose, since it sought evidence to support an improperly pleaded (now struck out) justification defence. Certain paragraphs in the qualified privilege defence that purported to plead the objective truth of facts in support of reasonableness were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence and to Set Aside Subpoena
Outcome
Application granted in part: paragraphs of the amended defence struck out; subpoena set aside; confidentiality orders refused; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'particulars of Defence' 'justification Defence' 'qualified Privilege' 'subpoena' 'confidentiality Orders']
['defamation' 'practice and Procedure'] ['strike Out Application' 'particulars of Defence' 'justification Defence' 'qualified Privilege' 'subpoena' 'confidentiality Orders']

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

Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Ruling on Application to Strike Out Parts of Amended Defence and to Set Aside Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particulars of the defence of justification were inadequate and incapable of supporting the defence and should be struck out under r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether certain paragraphs of the defence pleaded matters irrelevant to the qualified privilege defence and should be struck out' 'Whether the subpoena issued to the Sydney Theatre Company had a legitimate forensic purpose or amounted to an abuse of process' 'Whether confidentiality, suppression, or non-publication orders should be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of the justification defence were so vague, imprecise, and lacking in specificity that they failed to fairly inform the applicant of the case to meet, and were not capable of proving the substantial truth of any of the pleaded imputations. Accordingly, those particulars and the justification defence were struck out under r 16.21(1). The subpoena issued to the Sydney Theatre Company was set aside for want of a legitimate forensic purpose, since it sought evidence to support an improperly pleaded (now struck out) justification defence. Certain paragraphs in the qualified privilege defence that purported to plead the objective truth of facts in support of reasonableness were...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: paragraphs of the amended defence struck out; subpoena set aside; confidentiality orders refused; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), paragraphs 13(a), 14 to 28 and 36.9A to 36.9C of the respondent's amended defence filed on 15 February 2018 be struck out." "Pursuant to r 24.15 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the respondent's subpoena issued on 14 February 2018 and served upon...