Norman v Cowell [2014] NSWSC 1575

Norman v Cowell [2014] NSWSC 1575

The defence was embarrassing because it failed to comply with pleading requirements and did not plead the hinted defences in proper form, so it had to be struck out under rule 14.28, but the defendant was given leave to file an amended defence. The subpoena issue and possible transfer to the District Court were deferred because they depended on the form of any amended defence, particularly any properly pleaded truth defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Seeking to Strike Out the Defence and Set Aside a Subpoena
Outcome
Defence filed 30 July 2014 struck out; defendant granted leave to file an amended defence within 28 days; subpoena issue and transfer issue stood over; defendant referred for pro bono assistance in drafting an amended defence.
Legal Topics
['defences' 'form of Pleading' 'strike Out of Defence' 'subpoena' 'pro Bono Referral']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defences' 'form of Pleading' 'strike Out of Defence' 'subpoena' 'pro Bono Referral']

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 Seeking to Strike Out the Defence and Set Aside a Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence filed 30 July 2014 should be struck out for failure to conform to pleading requirements.' 'Whether the subpoena should be set aside or stood over pending an amended defence.' 'Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the District Court.' 'Whether the self-represented defendant should be referred for pro bono legal assistance in drafting an amended defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defence was embarrassing because it failed to comply with pleading requirements and did not plead the hinted defences in proper form, so it had to be struck out under rule 14.28, but the defendant was given leave to file an amended defence. The subpoena issue and possible transfer to the District Court were deferred because they depended on the form of any amended defence, particularly any properly pleaded truth defence.

Court Disposition

Defence filed 30 July 2014 struck out; defendant granted leave to file an amended defence within 28 days; subpoena issue and transfer issue stood over; defendant referred for pro bono assistance in drafting an amended defence.

Orders

  • ['The defence filed 30 July 2014 be struck out.' "Prayer 2 of the plaintiff's notice of motion be stood over." 'The first defendant have leave to file an amended defence within 28 days.' 'The proceedings be stood over before McCallum J for directions on 5 December 2014.' 'Ms Cowell be referred to the registrar for...