Mallegowda v Sood (No. 3) [2015] NSWDC 14

Mallegowda v Sood (No. 3) [2015] NSWDC 14

The plaintiff was entitled to amend to plead back the defendants' remaining contextual imputations because the application was made promptly after Hall v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, no prejudice was shown, and the amendments would simplify the trial; first defendant contextual imputation (i) was struck out because it conveyed the same sting as the plaintiff's imputations. The defendants' security for costs application failed because the rules did not justify security against the plaintiff and, in any event, the application was made too late and would prejudice the plaintiff. The mental health applications and medical subpoena request were refused because no injury to health claim was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings Consisting of a Claim and Cross Claim for Defamation / Interlocutory Applications Before Trial Listed to Commence 16 March 2015
Outcome
Plaintiff's applications to strike out contextual imputation (i) and to plead back specified contextual imputations granted; defendants' applications for security for costs, mental health information, medical subpoena, setting aside the RMS subpoena, and further expert report refused or left to the trial judge;...
Legal Topics
['pleading Back Contextual Imputations' 'contextual Justification' 'security for Costs' 'subpoenae' 'expert Evidence' 'mental Health Examination' 'case Management']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['pleading Back Contextual Imputations' 'contextual Justification' 'security for Costs' 'subpoenae' 'expert Evidence' 'mental Health Examination' 'case Management']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings Consisting of a Claim and Cross Claim for Defamation / Interlocutory Applications Before Trial Listed to Commence 16 March 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to plead back contextual imputations pleaded by the defendants.' "Whether the first defendant's contextual imputation (i) should be struck out because it did not differ in substance from imputations pleaded by the plaintiff." 'Whether the defendants should obtain security for costs from the plaintiff in the sum of $584,418.' "Whether the defendants should obtain information or medical records concerning the plaintiff's mental health or an order for psychiatric examination." "Whether the plaintiff's subpoena to RMS should be set aside." "Whether objections to Dr Clarke's opinion and further expert report issues should be determined before trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to amend to plead back the defendants' remaining contextual imputations because the application was made promptly after Hall v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, no prejudice was shown, and the amendments would simplify the trial; first defendant contextual imputation (i) was struck out because it conveyed the same sting as the plaintiff's imputations. The defendants' security for costs application failed because the rules did not justify security against the plaintiff and, in any event, the application was made too late and would prejudice the plaintiff. The mental health applications and medical subpoena request were refused because no injury to health claim was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's applications to strike out contextual imputation (i) and to plead back specified contextual imputations granted; defendants' applications for security for costs, mental health information, medical subpoena, setting aside the RMS subpoena, and further expert report refused or left to the trial judge;...

Orders

  • ['The defendants agreed to orders being made in open court with written decision by email later that day.' "The plaintiff's application to strike out contextual imputation (i) was granted." "The plaintiff's application to plead back contextual imputations (j), (k) and (m) from the first defendant's defence and...