Armstrong v McIntosh

Armstrong commenced defamation proceedings against McIntosh, seeking damages for defamatory statements made in a blog post. McIntosh filed a defence, including claims of triviality, qualified privilege, and justification. Armstrong applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence, arguing they did not disclose a reasonable defence and were likely to prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial. McIntosh opposed the application, asserting that the particulars pleaded were adequate to support the defences. The court was required to determine whether the defences raised by McIntosh were sufficient to warrant consideration and whether the particulars pleaded adequately supported those defences.

The court considered the nature of the defences raised by McIntosh and whether they disclosed a reasonable defence. It was noted that the categories of occasions of qualified privilege are not closed and the circumstances of the case, the situation of the parties, and the events leading up to and surrounding the publication must be closely scrutinised. The court also considered whether the particulars pleaded were adequate to support the defences of triviality, qualified privilege, and justification. The court held that the defences raised by McIntosh disclosed a reasonable defence and that the particulars pleaded were adequate to support those defences.

Accordingly, the application to strike out was dismissed. The court held that the defences of triviality, qualified privilege, and justification raised by McIntosh were sufficient to warrant consideration and that the particulars pleaded adequately supported those defences. The court did not find that the particulars were likely to prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial.

The court ordered that the application to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence be dismissed.