WU v MONCUR [2014] NZHC 2776

WU v MONCUR [2014] NZHC 2776

Leave was granted to the first defendant to file a statement of defence out of time because, on balance, the interests of justice required it and there was an arguable defence similar in part to defences already raised by other defendants; however leave was conditional to prevent prejudice and delay: the bad...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2776
Parties
Plaintiff: Yi Wu (alias Easter Wu); First Defendant: May Moncur; Second Defendant: Stephen Cook; Third Defendant: Dermott Malley; Fourth Defendant: Truth Weekender Limited (in liquidation); Fifth Defendant: Bob Kerridge
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Pre Trial Application for Leave to File Statement of Defence Out of Time; Three Day Trial Listed to Commence 17 November 2014
Outcome
Grant of leave to first defendant to file statement of defence out of time, subject to strict conditions; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Leave to File Defence Out of Time, Striking Out Defences, Honest Opinion, Truth, Notice of Evidence of Bad Reputation, Trial Management
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Leave to File Defence Out of Time Striking Out Defences Honest Opinion Truth Notice of Evidence of Bad Reputation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yi Wu (alias Easter Wu)

Plaintiff

May Moncur

First Defendant

Stephen Cook

Second Defendant

Dermott Malley

Third Defendant

Truth Weekender Limited (in liquidation)

Fourth Defendant

Bob Kerridge

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Pre Trial Application for Leave to File Statement of Defence Out of Time; Three Day Trial Listed to Commence 17 November 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave under r 7.7 to file a statement of defence after close of pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the delay and reasons for delay justify refusal
  3. 3 Whether granting leave would cause significant prejudice or delay to other parties

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to the first defendant to file a statement of defence out of time because, on balance, the interests of justice required it and there was an arguable defence similar in part to defences already raised by other defendants; however leave was conditional to prevent prejudice and delay: the bad reputation notice was struck out, defences limited to honest opinion and truth, and particulars and evidence must be filed and served by 1.00 pm on 11 November 2014 or the defence will not be considered at trial; costs of $3,482.50 were awarded to the plaintiff payable immediately.

Court Disposition

Grant of leave to first defendant to file statement of defence out of time, subject to strict conditions; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Strike out the proposed affirmative defence of notice of evidence of bad reputation from the statement of defence and disallow it as a defence.
  • Limit the statement of defence to defences pleaded with only the affirmative defences of honest opinion and truth.