Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited - [2010] NSWSC 760

CITATION: Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited & Anor [2010] NSWSC 760

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 July 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: McCallum J

DECISION: (1) The defendant is to answer paragraph 11.1 of the plaintiff’s third request for further and better particulars dated 10 May 2010.
(2) The defendant is to provide the further and better particulars of paragraphs 16(d) and (e) of the defence identified in paragraph 50 of this judgment.
(3) The defendant is to provide the further and better particulars of paragraph 19 of the defence identified in paragraph 61 of this judgment.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - adequacy of particulars of defence - no matter of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Defamation Act 1974
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1226
Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited [2007] NSWSC 1472
Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd [2008] NSWCA 300
Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317

PARTIES: Abdullah Al-Shennag (Plaintiff)
Statewide Roads Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Bill Woodcock (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 05/269387

COUNSEL: In Person (Plaintiff)
M.S. White (Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Norton Rose (Second Defendant)

- 19 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCALLUM J

9 JULY 2010

05/269387 ABDULLAH AL-SHENNAG v STATEWIDE ROADS LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation brought by Mr Abdullah Al-Shennag, an engineer formerly employed by Bankstown City Council. The matter complained of is a report commissioned by the Council to assess the validity of conditions placed by Mr Al-Shennag on three separate development applications that had been lodged with the Council. The report concluded that the matters analysed disclosed a series of mistakes and errors on the part of Mr Al-Shennag underlined by poor engineering judgment.

2 The only remaining defendant to the proceedings is the author of the report, Mr Bill Woodcock. The proceedings have reached the stage where it has been determined in Mr Al-Shennag’s favour that Mr Woodcock’s report conveyed five imputations defamatory of Mr Al-Shennag: see Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited [2007] NSWSC 1472. It remains for the Court to determine the defences raised by Mr Woodcock to those imputations and the amount of damages (if any) that should be awarded to Mr Al-Shennag: see s 7A(4) of the Defamation Act 1974 (now repealed).

3 The application presently before the Court concerns the adequacy of the particulars given of Mr Woodcock’s defence. The defence was filed on 12 November 2009. It responds in terms to each of the paragraphs of the amended statement of claim filed 29 May 2007. In addition, the defence pleads the defences of qualified privilege at common law and under s 22 of the Defamation Act 1974, consent and unlikelihood of harm.

4 Mr Al-Shennag represents himself in the proceedings. By letter dated 11 December 2009, he made his first request for further and better particulars of the defence.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 760
Decision Date: 9 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Limited involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Al-Shennag, against the defendant, Statewide Roads Limited. The dispute centred around allegations of defamatory statements made by Statewide Roads Limited, which were published to a group of employees and contractors, leading to the plaintiff's reputation being damaged. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the particulars of the defendant's defence were adequate to respond to the plaintiff's claims. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the defendant had provided sufficient details to counter the allegations of defamation. The court also had to consider whether the particulars of the defence met the necessary standards for a defence in defamation cases, particularly in relation to the requirement for the defendant to set out the facts relied upon in sufficient detail to enable the plaintiff to respond.

The court found that the particulars of the defence were adequate, noting that there was no matter of principle involved in the adequacy of the defence. The court determined that the defendant had provided sufficient information to respond to the defamation claims and that the particulars met the necessary standards. The court emphasised that the adequacy of the defence was not a matter of principle but rather a procedural issue, and it was satisfied that the defendant's particulars were sufficient for the purposes of the litigation. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to strike out the defence.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled that the particulars of the defence in the defamation claim were adequate and dismissed the plaintiff's application to strike them out. The court's decision underscored the procedural nature of the issue and confirmed that the defendant's defence was sufficient to proceed with the litigation.

Orders