Assaf v Skalkos

In the case of Assaf v Skalkos, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamation against the defendant. The dispute reached the court where the legal issues centred on the defences of qualified privilege and the consideration of these defences after the jury had answered questions of fact under section 90. A significant issue was whether the jury's answers to questions relating to the comment defence were inconsistent, and if so, whether the matter should be referred to the Court of Appeal under Part 12, rule 2 of the relevant court rules. Additionally, the court considered whether apparently inconsistent answers could be treated as surplusage.

The court examined the jury's answers to the section 90 questions and identified potential inconsistencies in the responses relating to the comment defence. The court deliberated on the appropriate course of action, including whether to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal or to treat the inconsistent answers as surplusage. The court also reviewed the application for an amendment of the defence and particulars of qualified privilege submitted after the jury had answered the section 90 questions. In reaching its decision, the court weighed the importance of ensuring consistency in the jury's findings against the procedural steps necessary to address any inconsistencies. Ultimately, the court decided to refuse the application for amendment, explaining its reasoning based on the procedural and substantive considerations involved.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to maintain the integrity of the trial process and to ensure that any inconsistencies in the jury's findings were appropriately addressed. The court concluded that the apparently inconsistent answers could not be treated as surplusage and that the matter did not warrant referral to the Court of Appeal. Instead, the court refused the application for amendment of the defence and particulars of qualified privilege, emphasising the importance of procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice. The final orders reflected the court's decision to uphold the integrity of the trial process and to deny the application for amendment.