Domican v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Limited [2019] FCA 1384

Domican v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Limited [2019] FCA 1384

The alternative imputations pleaded in the truth defences differ in substance from those alleged by the applicant and are therefore impermissible; the contextual imputations and particulars of truth are too imprecise or insufficiently particularised to be maintained; accordingly, the relevant paragraphs and particulars of the respondents' defences should be struck out with leave to replead.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Christopher Domican; First Respondent: Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Limited; Second Respondent: John Houssam Ibrahim
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Defences
Outcome
Application to strike out parts of the respondents' defences granted. Leave to replead granted. Costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Pleading in Defamation, Defence of Truth, Contextual Truth, Federal Court Procedure, Particulars of Pleading, Striking Out Pleadings
Defamation Practice and Procedure Pleading in Defamation Defence of Truth Contextual Truth Federal Court Procedure Particulars of Pleading Striking Out 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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Christopher Domican

Applicant

Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Limited

First Respondent

John Houssam Ibrahim

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents can plead common law truth defence based on alternative imputations to those alleged by applicant
  2. 2 Whether alternative imputations pleaded differ in substance from imputations alleged by applicant
  3. 3 Whether contextual imputations are too general or imprecise

Ratio Decidendi

The alternative imputations pleaded in the truth defences differ in substance from those alleged by the applicant and are therefore impermissible; the contextual imputations and particulars of truth are too imprecise or insufficiently particularised to be maintained; accordingly, the relevant paragraphs and particulars of the respondents' defences should be struck out with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out parts of the respondents' defences granted. Leave to replead granted. Costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the first respondent's defence be struck out.
  • Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and annexure A of the second respondent's defence be struck out.