Assaf v Skalkos

The case of Assaf v Skalkos was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Assaf, sought damages for defamation against the defendants, Skalkos and another. The alleged defamatory statement was that Assaf was a "cheat and a liar." The defendants sought to argue that the words should not be understood in their natural and ordinary meaning, but instead should be interpreted as trade terms, which do not carry defamatory implications.

The legal issue before the court was whether the defendants were permitted to raise the defence that the words were trade terms on the pleadings alone, without the need for additional evidence. The court had to determine if this defence could be considered without further substantiation at that stage of the proceedings. The court needed to decide if the defendants could rely on this defence based solely on the allegations presented in the pleadings or if the defendants were required to provide more evidence before the court would consider the defence.

The court held that the defendants could not raise the defence of trade terms based solely on the pleadings. The court reasoned that for a defence such as this to be considered, it required more than just the pleadings. The court determined that the defendants needed to provide additional evidence to support the claim that the words were indeed trade terms. Without such evidence, the court would not consider the defence of trade terms at the pleadings stage. The court ruled that the defendants' attempt to introduce this defence on the pleadings was not permissible and that the case would proceed based on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.

The court's decision clarified the procedural requirements for raising certain defences in defamation cases. It underscored the necessity for defendants to provide substantive evidence to support their claims, rather than relying solely on the pleadings. The case sets a precedent for how similar defences should be approached in future defamation cases.