Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 171

Chel v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 171

Leave to amend was refused due to significant and unacceptable delay primarily attributable to the plaintiff; the dictates of justice required refusal of the amendment, and there was no abuse of process in the statutory context. The application to strike out the reply was refused because the plaintiff acknowledged further particulars should be provided, making strike out inappropriate at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Application on Amendments and Strike Out
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for leave to amend further amended statement of claim refused; defendants' application to strike out the reply refused.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'amendment of Statements of Claim' 'abuse of Process']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'contextual Imputations' 'amendment of Statements of Claim' 'abuse of Process']

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 Proceeding / Interlocutory Application on Amendments and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend pleading to incorporate defendants' contextual imputations as her own" 'Whether it is an abuse of process to allow such an amendment' "Whether the defendants' application to strike out the reply should be granted due to lack of particulars"]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused due to significant and unacceptable delay primarily attributable to the plaintiff; the dictates of justice required refusal of the amendment, and there was no abuse of process in the statutory context. The application to strike out the reply was refused because the plaintiff acknowledged further particulars should be provided, making strike out inappropriate at this stage.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for leave to amend further amended statement of claim refused; defendants' application to strike out the reply refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to amend the further amended statement of claim is refused.' 'The application to have the reply struck out is refused.']