Winn v Thompson [2024] FCA 358

Winn v Thompson [2024] FCA 358

Leave to rely on the proposed amended defence was refused because it contained insufficiently particular or imprecise allegations likely to cause prejudice and embarrassment and failed to adequately plead material facts relating to the defence of justification. The respondents' particulars did not meet the requirements for specificity and were not properly linked to the pleaded imputations, particularly in relation to allegations of gaslighting and the use of hearsay communications. Respondents were granted leave to replead as some allegations, if properly particularised, could cumulatively establish a reasonable defence of justification.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Winn; First Respondent: Holly Thompson; Second Respondent: Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited; Third Respondent: The Age Company Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Rely on Amended Defence
Outcome
Leave to rely on the proposed amended defence refused; leave to replead granted
Legal Topics
Defence of Justification, Strike Out Application, Pleadings, Amended Defence, Particularity of Pleadings
Defamation Civil Procedure Defence of Justification Strike Out Application Pleadings Amended Defence Particularity of 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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Winn

Applicant

Holly Thompson

First Respondent

Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Limited

Second Respondent

The Age Company Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Rely on Amended Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amended defence discloses a reasonable defence of justification under Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 25
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amended defence is evasive, ambiguous, or likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding under Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.02
  3. 3 Whether respondents should be granted leave to rely on the proposed amended defence or to replead

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to rely on the proposed amended defence was refused because it contained insufficiently particular or imprecise allegations likely to cause prejudice and embarrassment and failed to adequately plead material facts relating to the defence of justification. The respondents' particulars did not meet the requirements for specificity and were not properly linked to the pleaded imputations, particularly in relation to allegations of gaslighting and the use of hearsay communications. Respondents were granted leave to replead as some allegations, if properly particularised, could cumulatively establish a reasonable defence of justification.

Court Disposition

Leave to rely on the proposed amended defence refused; leave to replead granted

Orders

  • Leave to the respondents to rely on the minute of amended defence provided to the Court on 19 February 2024 is refused.
  • By 4.00 pm AWST on 10 May 2024, the respondents must file and serve a further minute of amended defence.