Cowper v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Cowper v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] NSWSC 1614

Cowper v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Cowper v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2016] NSWSC 1614

The defendants' particulars of justification were sufficiently particular as to allow the plaintiff to know the case to meet; overly detailed particulars or evidence are not required in pleadings. Leave to further amend the defences to add new forgery allegations was refused due to lateness, likely prejudice, lack of substantive connection, and the inability of the available material to prove forgery. The application to vacate the trial date due to the unavailability of the fourth defendant was refused as her evidence was not central and could be obtained from other sources. The application to order disclosure of sources' identities under s 126K of the Evidence Act was refused as public...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings (motions/interlocutory) / Interlocutory (motions to Strike Out, Amend Defences, Vacate Dates)
Outcome
Several interlocutory motions determined: applications to strike out particulars of justification refused in part, leave to amend defences to add forgery allegations refused, application to vacate trial dates refused, application to compel disclosure of journalist sources refused.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Motions' 'particulars of Pleadings' 'amendment of Defences' 'journalist Privilege' 'qualified Privilege' 'case Management' 'pleading Rules']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out Motions' 'particulars of Pleadings' 'amendment of Defences' 'journalist Privilege' 'qualified Privilege' 'case Management' 'pleading Rules']

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 (motions/interlocutory) / Interlocutory (motions to Strike Out, Amend Defences, Vacate Dates)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether particulars of the justification defence are sufficient and should be struck out' 'Whether leave should be granted to further amend the defence to plead forgery' 'Whether trial dates should be vacated due to unavailability of a witness' "Whether journalist privilege applies to sources' identities and if an order should be made for disclosure under s 126K Evidence Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' particulars of justification were sufficiently particular as to allow the plaintiff to know the case to meet; overly detailed particulars or evidence are not required in pleadings. Leave to further amend the defences to add new forgery allegations was refused due to lateness, likely prejudice, lack of substantive connection, and the inability of the available material to prove forgery. The application to vacate the trial date due to the unavailability of the fourth defendant was refused as her evidence was not central and could be obtained from other sources. The application to order disclosure of sources' identities under s 126K of the Evidence Act was refused as public...

Court Disposition

Several interlocutory motions determined: applications to strike out particulars of justification refused in part, leave to amend defences to add forgery allegations refused, application to vacate trial dates refused, application to compel disclosure of journalist sources refused.

Orders

  • ['Strike out motion regarding particulars of justification refused (in part granted for imprecise claims of unknown clients/amounts)' 'Leave to amend defences to add allegations of forgery refused' 'Application to vacate the trial dates refused' "No order for disclosure of sources' identities under s 126K Evidence...