Armstrong v McIntosh (No 2)

Armstrong v McIntosh (No 2) involved a defamation case where the plaintiff sought to proceed with an action against the defendant. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made various defamatory statements about them in publications, leading to damage to their reputation. The defendant applied to have the action permanently stayed or dismissed, arguing that it was an abuse of the court process, that the resources of the court and parties were disproportionate to the interest at stake, and that the imputations did not meet the necessary threshold of seriousness.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's allegations met the threshold of seriousness to be considered defamatory. The court considered the nature of the imputations and whether they were capable of substantially affecting the plaintiff's reputation. The court noted that the threshold for seriousness was low and that the determination of whether the imputations met this threshold was not to be made at an interlocutory stage. The court found that the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff, such as being an evil person, a hypocrite, a liar, and aggressive, were capable of substantially affecting a person's reputation and were not trivial criticisms. Therefore, they were capable of meeting the threshold of seriousness.

Based on the court's findings, the application to permanently stay or dismiss the action was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff's imputations were capable of meeting the threshold of seriousness, and thus the action could proceed. The court did not find that the resources of the court or parties were disproportionate to the interest at stake, nor did it find that the proceedings were an abuse of the court process. The final orders of the court allowed the plaintiff's action to proceed, rejecting the defendant's application to stay or dismiss the case.