Belbin v McLean

The plaintiff, Belbin, initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, McLean, alleging defamation. The publication in question was made to a superior, who subsequently republished the complaints to the Criminal Justice Commission. No action was brought against the superior. The defendant raised a defence of absolute privilege and treated the republication as a matter affecting damages rather than a separate cause of action. Belbin sought to strike out related parts of the defence, arguing that certain portions were irrelevant and that the defence was so implausible it could not succeed. The court had to determine whether the judge should decline to deal with the application.

The court identified that the central legal issues were whether the relevant parts of the defence should be struck out and whether the defence was so clearly unsustainable that it could not succeed. The court considered the principle that a judge should not decline to deal with an application to strike out unless the defence is clearly unsustainable and bound to fail. In assessing the sustainability of the defence, the court noted the need to evaluate the arguments presented and the relevance of the defence to the overall case. The court concluded that the defence of absolute privilege, despite the republication, was a valid defence and was not so implausible that it could be dismissed outright.

In ruling on the application, the court found that the defence of absolute privilege was sustainable and relevant to the case. The court held that the defence was not so clearly unsustainable that it could not succeed, and therefore, the application to strike out parts of the defence should be refused. The court emphasised that such decisions should not be made lightly and that the defence must be assessed on its merits. Consequently, the application to strike out parts of the defence was refused, and costs were awarded to the defendant as costs in the cause.