Tyndall Funds Management Australia Limited & Anor v Mesh & 2 Ors [1999] NSWSC 69

Tyndall Funds Management Australia Limited & Anor v Mesh & 2 Ors [1999] NSWSC 69

The contextual imputations not properly particularised or not differing in substance from the plaintiffs' imputations are struck out; the cross-claim is struck out for being embarrassing and lacking particulars, with leave to amend; defendants are ordered to provide further and better particulars of the defence and certain particulars of mitigation, and to amend their pleadings accordingly.

Parties
Plaintiff: Tyndall Funds Management Australia Limited; Plaintiff: Tyndall Funds Management (NSW) Limited; First Defendant: Pamela Ann Mesh; Second Defendant: Helen Chuproff; Third Defendant: Hari Bhagat; Third Cross Defendant: Grant Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Particulars, Striking Out Pleadings
Outcome
Application allowed in part—orders for amendment, striking out of certain pleadings, costs to plaintiffs and third cross-defendant
Legal Topics
Particulars of Comment, Qualified Privilege, Contextual Imputations, Capacity, Form of Pleadings, Cross Claim, Abuse of Process, Defective Pleading
Defamation Civil Procedure Particulars of Comment Qualified Privilege Contextual Imputations Capacity Form of Pleadings Cross Claim +2 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tyndall Funds Management Australia Limited

Plaintiff

Tyndall Funds Management (NSW) Limited

Plaintiff

Pamela Ann Mesh

First Defendant

Helen Chuproff

Second Defendant

Hari Bhagat

Third Defendant

Grant Smith

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Particulars, Striking Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' defence and cross-claim should be struck out or amended for failure to properly particularise defences and causes of action
  2. 2 Which contextual imputations should be struck out as incapable or bad in form
  3. 3 Whether the cross-claim for abuse of process is sustainable or properly pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The contextual imputations not properly particularised or not differing in substance from the plaintiffs' imputations are struck out; the cross-claim is struck out for being embarrassing and lacking particulars, with leave to amend; defendants are ordered to provide further and better particulars of the defence and certain particulars of mitigation, and to amend their pleadings accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part—orders for amendment, striking out of certain pleadings, costs to plaintiffs and third cross-defendant

Orders

  • Contextual imputations 9(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi) and (xii) struck out by consent.
  • Defendants to supply proper further and better particulars of the defence of comment and qualified privilege within 28 days.