Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 662

Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 662

Because the defendant's operative defence was the defence filed on 13 July 2018 as reduced by prior strike-out orders, and because he had never particularised or put on evidence for the defences he wished to pursue, the alleged truth of the sex tape article was not a live issue in the defamation claim and was irrelevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The cross-examination question was therefore rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Objection to a Line of Questioning in Cross Examination
Outcome
Objection upheld.
Legal Topics
['objection to Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'relevance' 'particulars of Defences' 'truth Defence' 'injurious Falsehood']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'evidence'] ['objection to Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'relevance' 'particulars of Defences' 'truth Defence' 'injurious Falsehood']

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 and Injurious Falsehood Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Objection to a Line of Questioning in Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be permitted in cross-examination to ask Dr McKee whether he agreed there was a sex tape.' 'Whether the alleged truth of the sex tape article was relevant to any live issue given the limited pleaded defence.' "Whether the defendant's failure to particularise defences prevented him from pursuing the truth of the alleged defamatory matter."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant's operative defence was the defence filed on 13 July 2018 as reduced by prior strike-out orders, and because he had never particularised or put on evidence for the defences he wished to pursue, the alleged truth of the sex tape article was not a live issue in the defamation claim and was irrelevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The cross-examination question was therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld.

Orders

  • ['The particular question pressed by the defendant was rejected.']