Mallik v McGeown [2008] NSWSC 674

Mallik v McGeown [2008] NSWSC 674

The reply was struck out because it was embarrassing, failed to distil the facts required to sustain particulars of improper motive, mixed evidence and conclusions, did not identify with clarity the acts or words relied upon for each alleged state of mind, and was apt to cause confusion and prejudice at trial.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robin Mallik; 1st Defendant: William McGeown; 2nd Defendant: Hunter Valley Independant Newspapers Pty Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Russell John Hawkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Reply and for Further Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Reply struck out; leave to re-plead; further and better answers to interrogatories directed; costs to third defendant.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Pleadings, Particulars of Malice, Interrogatories, Civil Procedure
Common Law Defamation Qualified Privilege Pleadings Particulars of Malice Interrogatories Civil Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Mallik

Plaintiff

William McGeown

1st Defendant

Hunter Valley Independant Newspapers Pty Ltd

2nd Defendant

Russell John Hawkins

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Reply and for Further Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's reply should be struck out under r 14.28 of the UCPR for causing embarrassment
  2. 2 Whether the reply failed to comply with r 14.7 of the UCPR by pleading evidence rather than material facts
  3. 3 Whether particulars of malice were adequately and properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The reply was struck out because it was embarrassing, failed to distil the facts required to sustain particulars of improper motive, mixed evidence and conclusions, did not identify with clarity the acts or words relied upon for each alleged state of mind, and was apt to cause confusion and prejudice at trial.

Court Disposition

Reply struck out; leave to re-plead; further and better answers to interrogatories directed; costs to third defendant.

Orders

  • The reply to the third further amended defence of the third defendant is struck out pursuant to r 14.28 of the UCPR.
  • Plaintiff granted leave to file and serve an amended reply within 14 days.