Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn (No 3) [2008] FCA 1584

Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn (No 3) [2008] FCA 1584

The respondent’s proposed second further amended defence does not provide sufficient particulars to support the pleas of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. It effectively restates the imputations or general denials without adequate factual details, and fails to cure the defects identified by the applicants and previously by the Court.

Parties
First Applicant: Metcash Trading Limited (ACN 000 031 569); Second Applicant: IGA Distribution Pty Ltd (ACN 004 391 422); Third Applicant: Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd (ACN 002 885 645); Respondent: Peter Chadley Bunn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Respondent's application to amend defence dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Particulars of Defence, Defamation Defences, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Trade Mark Infringement, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Defamation Trade Practices Contracts Intellectual Property Amendment of Pleadings Particulars of Defence Defamation Defences Remedies for Breach of Contract +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metcash Trading Limited (ACN 000 031 569)

First Applicant

IGA Distribution Pty Ltd (ACN 004 391 422)

Second Applicant

Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd (ACN 002 885 645)

Third Applicant

Peter Chadley Bunn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to file a second further amended defence
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amended defence provides sufficient particulars for pleas of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent’s proposed second further amended defence does not provide sufficient particulars to support the pleas of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. It effectively restates the imputations or general denials without adequate factual details, and fails to cure the defects identified by the applicants and previously by the Court.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application to amend defence dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's application to amend his defence in accordance with the proposed second further amended defence is dismissed.
  • The respondent pay the applicants' costs.