Templar v Britton [2013] NSWSC 1827

Templar v Britton [2013] NSWSC 1827

The amended pleading was not struck out as impermissibly inconsistent under rule 14.18, but the unusual evolution of the pleading justified requiring verification. The minutes did not name either plaintiff, so particulars were required of persons to whom the minutes were published who knew facts identifying the plaintiff. The republication to Mrs Britton, relied upon only as to damages, did not require pleading of the words used. Imputation 11(e) was insufficiently clear because the email referred to the accuracy and validity of results, not the validity of the testing, and the concept of an invalid hearing test was likely to cause confusion. The broader republication allegations and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings With Additional Claims for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Defendants' Objections to the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' objections allowed in part; verification and particulars ordered; imputation 11(e) struck out with leave to replead; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'verification of Pleadings' 'inconsistent Pleadings' 'republication' 'identification' 'imputations' 'particulars' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'future Economic Loss']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'injurious Falsehood'] ['pleadings' 'verification of Pleadings' 'inconsistent Pleadings' 'republication' 'identification' 'imputations' 'particulars' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'future Economic Loss']

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 Proceedings With Additional Claims for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct and Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Applications Concerning Defendants' Objections to the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended pleading was impermissibly inconsistent with previous iterations of the pleading under rule 14.18(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should be required to verify the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Whether a republication in minutes that did not name either plaintiff could be relied upon without particulars of persons who knew facts identifying the plaintiff.' 'Whether words of a republication to Mrs Britton had to be pleaded where the republication was relied upon only as to damages.' 'Whether imputation 11(e) was ambiguous or failed to capture a defamatory sting with sufficient clarity.' 'Whether allegations of republication to a wide and extensive audience and other non-defamation claims were adequately particularised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended pleading was not struck out as impermissibly inconsistent under rule 14.18, but the unusual evolution of the pleading justified requiring verification. The minutes did not name either plaintiff, so particulars were required of persons to whom the minutes were published who knew facts identifying the plaintiff. The republication to Mrs Britton, relied upon only as to damages, did not require pleading of the words used. Imputation 11(e) was insufficiently clear because the email referred to the accuracy and validity of results, not the validity of the testing, and the concept of an invalid hearing test was likely to cause confusion. The broader republication allegations and the...

Court Disposition

Defendants' objections allowed in part; verification and particulars ordered; imputation 11(e) struck out with leave to replead; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 14.22(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 26 August 2013 be verified in accordance with Division 4 of Part 14 of the Rules.' 'The plaintiff provide particulars of the republication pleaded in paragraph 8 of the pleading in accordance with...