Tu v Chang (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 316

Tu v Chang (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 316

The particulars provided in support of the defence of justification to imputation 3(e) were so vague and unspecific that they did not disclose a reasonable answer and did not enable the plaintiff to know the precise case to meet. Having regard to repeated failures to supply adequate particulars, and the minimal value of the defence in the context of the case, the Court struck out the defence of justification to imputation 3(e) without leave to replead and awarded indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Zhen Tu; First Defendant: Qing Chang (known as Juliette Chang); Second Defendant: Chaohui Cui; Fifth Defendant: Mingwu Jin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Strike Out of Part of Defence
Outcome
Defence of justification to imputation 3(e) struck out without leave to replead; defendants ordered to pay plaintiff's indemnity costs; consequential timetable and orders made.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Defamation Justification Defence, Pleading Standards, Costs Indemnity
Torts Defamation Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Defamation Justification Defence Pleading Standards Costs Indemnity

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zhen Tu

Plaintiff

Qing Chang (known as Juliette Chang)

First Defendant

Chaohui Cui

Second Defendant

Mingwu Jin

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Strike Out of Part of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particulars of justification to imputation 3(e) in the defence are sufficient to disclose a reasonable defence
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to further amend the justification defence after previous deficient attempts

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars provided in support of the defence of justification to imputation 3(e) were so vague and unspecific that they did not disclose a reasonable answer and did not enable the plaintiff to know the precise case to meet. Having regard to repeated failures to supply adequate particulars, and the minimal value of the defence in the context of the case, the Court struck out the defence of justification to imputation 3(e) without leave to replead and awarded indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Defence of justification to imputation 3(e) struck out without leave to replead; defendants ordered to pay plaintiff's indemnity costs; consequential timetable and orders made.

Orders

  • Strike out the defence of justification to imputation 3(e).
  • Amended defence in 7 days deleting the defence of justification to imputation 3(e).