Munsie v Dowling (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 37

Munsie v Dowling (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 37

The Amended Defence was struck out because parts of it were scandalous and embarrassing or irrelevant surplusage, and the pleaded defences merely referred to statutory provisions or cases without identifying the imputations to which they applied or providing particulars of the facts, matters and circumstances relied on. The pleading therefore failed to inform the plaintiffs or the Court of the defendant's case and did not comply with the UCPR requirements for defamation defences. Discovery and interrogatories were refused because, after the defence was struck out and before a proper defence was filed, the real issues in dispute were not known and the defendant could not demonstrate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications to Strike Out Amended Defence and for Interrogatories and Discovery
Outcome
The plaintiffs' motion to strike out the Amended Defence succeeded; the defendant was granted leave to re-plead; the defendant's applications for discovery and interrogatories were refused at that time.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Defence' 'scandalous and Embarrassing Pleadings' 'defamation Pleading Requirements' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'absolute Privilege' 'qualified Privilege' 'honest Opinion' 'triviality' 'interrogatories' 'discovery']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out of Defence' 'scandalous and Embarrassing Pleadings' 'defamation Pleading Requirements' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'absolute Privilege' 'qualified Privilege' 'honest Opinion' 'triviality' 'interrogatories' 'discovery']

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 Applications to Strike Out Amended Defence and for Interrogatories and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Amended Defence should be struck out because it disclosed no reasonable defence and had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay.' 'Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file a further Amended Defence.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to answer interrogatories and give discovery before a proper defence had been filed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Defence was struck out because parts of it were scandalous and embarrassing or irrelevant surplusage, and the pleaded defences merely referred to statutory provisions or cases without identifying the imputations to which they applied or providing particulars of the facts, matters and circumstances relied on. The pleading therefore failed to inform the plaintiffs or the Court of the defendant's case and did not comply with the UCPR requirements for defamation defences. Discovery and interrogatories were refused because, after the defence was struck out and before a proper defence was filed, the real issues in dispute were not known and the defendant could not demonstrate...

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' motion to strike out the Amended Defence succeeded; the defendant was granted leave to re-plead; the defendant's applications for discovery and interrogatories were refused at that time.

Orders

  • ['The Amended Defence filed 18 August 2014 is struck out.' 'The defendant is granted leave to file a further Amended Defence within 21 days.' 'At this time I decline to make orders for discovery and interrogatories as requested by the defendant.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the motion to strike...