Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 336

Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 336

The proposed particulars of justification in the Further Amended Defence are defective and insufficient both in specificity and substance; they do not provide a legally sustainable defence of justification to the imputations found by Jagot J. Consequently, leave to file the Further Amended Defence is refused, but the respondents are given a further opportunity to re-plead the justification defence in compliance with the indicated standards.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceedings / Application for Leave to Further Amend Defence; Strike Out Application; Case Management
Outcome
Leave to file Further Amended Defence refused; leave granted to re-plead certain paragraphs; respondents to pay costs of the interlocutory application
Legal Topics
['pleading Standards in Justification Defences' 'mitigation of Damages in Defamation' 'vicarious Liability' 'leave to Amend Pleadings']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['pleading Standards in Justification Defences' 'mitigation of Damages in Defamation' 'vicarious Liability' 'leave to Amend Pleadings']

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

Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceedings / Application for Leave to Further Amend Defence; Strike Out Application; Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file a Further Amended Defence including particulars of justification' 'Whether the particulars of justification are defective or insufficient under procedural rules and defamation law' 'Whether proceedings should be dismissed or judgment entered for the Second Respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed particulars of justification in the Further Amended Defence are defective and insufficient both in specificity and substance; they do not provide a legally sustainable defence of justification to the imputations found by Jagot J. Consequently, leave to file the Further Amended Defence is refused, but the respondents are given a further opportunity to re-plead the justification defence in compliance with the indicated standards.

Court Disposition

Leave to file Further Amended Defence refused; leave granted to re-plead certain paragraphs; respondents to pay costs of the interlocutory application

Orders

  • ['Leave to file a Further Amended Defence in the proposed form is refused.' 'Respondents given leave to re-plead paragraphs 13 and 14 and particulars of justification.' 'Any re-pleading to be provided by 12 May 2023.' 'Matter stood over to 19 May 2023 for further case management hearing.' "Respondents to pay...