Benhayon v Rockett (No 3)

[2018] NSWSC 932

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Benhayon v Rockett (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 932
Hearing dates:	1 February 2018
Decision date:	20 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	McCallum J
Decision:	Rulings as to discovery and interrogatories; parties directed to bring in short minutes of order by close of business on 27 June 2018 to reflect these reasons
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION – interlocutory steps – application for second round of discovery – where plaintiff suing on many publications and many imputations – extensive truth defence
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Serge Isaac Benhayon (plaintiff) Esther Mary Rockett (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: KP Smark SC, C Wilson (plaintiff) T Molomby SC (defendant)   Solicitors: Universal Law Cameron Bell & Associates (plaintiff) Goldsmiths Lawyers (defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/329298
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: Serge Benhayon is a self-styled “complementary medicine healing practitioner” who propounds a "hands-on complementary healing technique” called Esoteric Healing. Mr Benhayon teaches what he describes as “religious and philosophical principles and a way of living known as ‘Universal Medicine’ and ‘The Way of The Livingness’”, carrying on business under the name "Universal Medicine".

2. Esther Rockett attended several healing sessions and other Universal Medicine events in 2004 before forming the view that Mr Benhayon was leading a cult. Since 2012, Ms Rockett has devoted her energies to investigating Universal Medicine and publishing her findings on her blog sites, "Universal Medicine Exposed" and "Esther Rockett - Healthcare Activist". By these proceedings, Mr Benhayon sues Ms Rockett for defamation in respect of her blogs.

3. The scope of the proceedings is large. Mr Benhayon sues on 21 separate publications. The pleading specifies numerous imputations allegedly conveyed by those publications including imputations of sexual predation, indecent assault and sexual abuse, misleading conduct in the promotion of the healing services offered by Universal Medicine, the making of false claims about healing, that Mr Benhayon is delusional, exploitative and dishonest, that he preys on cancer patients, that he dishonestly promotes fraudulent ideas of karma for self-gain, that he manipulated a follower to leave him the bulk of her million-dollar estate and that he is the leader of a socially harmful cult. Ms Rockett has pleaded the defence of truth to almost all of the imputations.

4. In March 2017, Ms Rockett foreshadowed an application for extensive discovery which was ultimately resolved by negotiation. A number of categories initially sought were excepted from the agreed categories. In October 2017, after extensive correspondence about the earlier discovery, Ms Rockett renewed her application for most of the excepted categories and proposed revised descriptions intended to resolve disputes as to existing categories. Mr Benhayon opposes a further round of discovery and opposes most of the particular categories now sought. Ms Rockett also seeks answers to a relatively small number of interrogatories, most of which are also opposed. This judgment determines those contests.

Discovery

5. The matters addressed in part C of the defendant’s written first submissions (undated) have persuaded me that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, an application for further interlocutory steps should be entertained. I have concluded that the application should be determined according to the merits of the individual further categories sought.

6. The first category in dispute is number 157 relating to gifts received by the plaintiff, as follows:

"Documents recording gifts from individuals or businesses over the sum of $1000 made, whether inter vivos or from the estate of a deceased person, to the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff's interests and accounting for use of such gifts from 1 January 2008 to date."

7. The term “the plaintiff's interests” is a defined term in the original request for discovery.

8. Mr Molomby SC, who appears for the defendant, submitted that there are many aspects of the defence which, individually, might appear “not to amount to very much” but which, taken in combination with others, are capable of doing so. This category provides an example of that proposition. Upon consideration of the defence as a whole, it is clear that the plaintiff’s receipt of gifts will form an important plank in Ms Rockett’s case.

9. A central allegation in the defence is that Mr Benhayon profits financially under the pretence of offering religion (imputation 11B(c) is that the plaintiff “has profited financially from abuse and oppression under the pretence that he is offering people religion”; the defence of truth is pleaded to that imputation). In support of the allegation that Mr Benhayon operates under the pretence of offering religion, Ms Rockett alleges that Mr Benhayon appropriated the works of an early 20th century theosophist and esoteric writer, Alice A Bailey. Ms Rockett contends that Mr Benhayon modified Bailey's belief system by adding “a good/evil dichotomy between the esoteric/fiery/soul and the astral/pranic/spirit”.

10. The particulars of truth rely on the plaintiff’s use of that dichotomy as a method of manipulating his followers. One of the imputations sought to be proved true by Ms Rockett is imputation 3(i), the plaintiff “engages in misleading conduct in promoting the healing services offered by Universal Medicine". The particulars provided in support of the truth defence to that imputation include 8(c), which asserts that, in lectures delivered between 2007 and 2012, the plaintiff made a series of false claims concerning healing which had no scientific merit, including the following claim (particular 8(c)(xvii)):

"Bequeathing money to a child who spends it to keep them in recognition and identification…holds the person who is making the bequest in contraction in their next life; sympathy drains the kidney energy and leaves a harmful pranic emanation on the person making the bequest and their loved ones".

11. Those particulars are repeated in support of the truth defence to a number of imputations, including imputations that the plaintiff exploits the followers of universal medicine through false and harmful teachings. As I understand the defence, one allegation will be that Mr Benhayon used unscientific claims such as that set out above to manipulate followers into making gifts to him instead of their own children. I am satisfied that the documents sought in category 157 are relevant to the proof of the exploitation imputations.

12. Mr Smark SC, who appears with Mr Wilson for the plaintiff, submitted that it would be enough for the defendant to know the total amount of gifts received but that there could be no need to know the individual gifts making up that sum. I do not accept that submission. I am satisfied that the number of donors and the amounts given will inform the matters sought to be proved by Ms Rockett. However, I consider that the additional request for documents recording the “accounting for use of such gifts” goes beyond the scope of the matters particularised. Category 157 will be allowed with the omission of the words “and accounting for use of such gifts”.

13. The next contested category is 158, as follows:

“All tax returns, including any amended tax returns, and accounts and financial statements from 1 January 2008 to date of the plaintiff and each of the plaintiff's interests.”

14. Mr Molomby submitted that the plaintiff’s financial statements are relevant to the whole of the defence asserting exploitation of followers of Universal Medicine.

15. Mr Smark opposed category 158 on the basis that the scope of discovery sought raised an issue of "proportionality". He submitted that the allegation of exploitation is the subject of only very general particulars. By way of example, particular 13(c) on page 21 of annexure A to the defence (the particulars of justification) states:

“The above statements are exploitative in that they unduly influence and deceive [Universal Medicine] subscribers to cause them to expend funds on [Universal Medicine] products and services, undertake voluntary work, make donations and bequests, shun loved ones, disseminate misinformation, and participate in attacks on critics, when such actions benefit the plaintiff, but are not in the best interests of subscribers."

16. Mr Smark submitted that an assertion of that kind does not provide a sufficient foundation for allowing the defendant to "trawl through all the financial records" without any individual particular asserting an undue profit or illegitimate profit. In my respectful opinion, the submission misconceives what it will be necessary to prove in order to justify the imputation that the plaintiff has “profited financially” from his conduct under the pretence of offering religion (an element of imputation 11B(c) set out above). The plaintiff's action seeks to vindicate his reputation against imputations to the effect that he is running a cult and exploiting followers financially under the guise of spurious teachings. In my assessment, it is entirely appropriate to require him to give full discovery of his tax returns and financial statements in such a case.

17. The inclusion of the words "and accounts", however, is problematic. That would potentially require discovery of every cash book, receipt and more. Category 158 will be allowed with the omission of those words.

18. The next contested category is 159, as follows:

"Documents recording any paid or unpaid work undertaken by the nominated readers of the matters complained of, as particularised in the second further amended statement of claim, for the plaintiff and any of the plaintiff's interests in any capacity, including promotional, administrative or organisational; any business or investment associations or partnerships with any of the nominated readers, and any endorsements by the plaintiff or the plaintiff interests of any of the nominate readers of the matters complained of since 1 January 2012."

19. The reference to the “nominate readers” (sic) is a reference to the persons identified in the pleading as having read the blogs. The purpose for seeking documents recording any paid or unpaid work undertaken by those people is to establish whether they are followers of the plaintiff’s teachings; if they are people who have undertaken a great deal of unpaid work for the plaintiff, it could be inferred that they are his followers (so the argument goes). If the only people who read Ms Rockett’s blogs were Mr Benhayon’s followers, it would follow that the extent of damage to his reputation was minimal.

20. The defendant submits that such documents would also inform the closeness of the relationship between plaintiff and some of his followers, which was said to be relevant to the truth of the imputation that he is the leader of a socially harmful cult (and like imputations). The argument was that the provision of extensive unpaid labour would tend to indicate exploitation.

21. The plaintiff submits that this category amounts to “fishing” and that the documents sought are not relevant to any issue raised by the pleadings. I can see some potential relevance of such documents to the imputations of exploitation and being the leader of a cult. However, the category as framed is extremely broad. I am not persuaded that this category is necessary in the required sense. Category 159 will not be allowed.

22. The next contest relates to category 160, as follows:

"Documents recording any complaints made (in whatever form) to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's interests with regard to any allegation of an adverse event experienced by clients or subscribers in their patronage of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's interests products and services; any complaint to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's interests regarding dishonest or misleading conduct by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's interests; and recording any complaints to any official body or official authority, including law enforcement authorities, industry bodies or insurance companies about the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff's interests from 1 January 2008 to date.

23. The defendant submitted that this category would be "relevant to virtually all facts in issue" in respect of the imputations specified by the plaintiff. In her detailed written submissions, the defendant identified a number of particular kinds of complaint or enquiry it was anticipated would be included in any discovery.

24. Mr Smark submitted that the vice of this category is that the mere fact that complaints are made by other people either to the plaintiff or to any other authority about him is not a fact in issue in the proceedings. He submitted that this category is "a massive fishing expedition". Perhaps without adopting that extravagant language, I accept that the documents sought go beyond what is necessary having regard to the issues raised by the pleadings. The fact of a complaint made about the plaintiff would not inform the truth of that complaint; further, any determination of any complaint by another authority would not be admissible in these proceedings. Category 160 will not be allowed.

25. The former category 161 was not included in the renewed request.

26. Category 162 seeks electronic copies of training manuals, paper copies of which have already been discovered. The reason for seeking the documents in electronic form is for ease of access. The plaintiff initially resisted production of those documents on the strength of a concern that the defendant might use them for a collateral purpose. The basis for that concern is that the plaintiff apprehends the defendant previously used other documents discovered in these proceedings for the collateral purpose of making them available on her blog. The defendant denies those complaints and says all material she has placed on her website has been obtained from another source (not from the discovery in these proceedings).

27. In the case of the electronic training manuals, those documents are not publicly available. As I observed during argument, if the defendant publishes them, it will be clear that she has used the discovered copy and the appropriate sanction can be imposed. I understood that to relieve the plaintiff's concern. Category 162 will be allowed.

28. Apart from the global objection to any further discovery, the plaintiff did not object to category 163. That category will be allowed.

29. Category 164 was not pressed.

30. Category 165 seeks: “all documents recording the solicitation of, or appeals for, gifts and bequests, the receipt of gifts and bequests over $1000, and communications about gifts or bequests to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s interests with benefactors or prospective benefactors, or about benefactors or prospective benefactors from 1 January 2008.” In the first round of discovery, there were categories that addressed that topic with greater particularity (categories 78, 79 and 143). The new category stands as a general category not directed to any specific allegation in the particulars of truth. While such documents would arguably be generally relevant to the exploitation imputations, the category is potentially extremely broad and in my view should be rejected on the grounds of proportionality.

31. Category 166 seeks ASIC company and business registration documents recording the plaintiff’s roles as director, proprietor, shareholder, trustee and beneficiary of all his interests. As discussed during argument, it would be preferable for that kind of information (which is available from ASIC in any event) to be solicited by an interrogatory. The defendant’s proposed interrogatories include a question to that effect (interrogatory 29). Category 166 is rejected on that basis.

32. Category 167 was not objected to.

33. Category 168 seeks documents recording marketing, merchandising or product information and pricing for Universal Medicine’s products and services. Apart from consenting to provide sub-category 168(e), the plaintiff opposes this category. The principal objection was the issue of proportionality, particularly in the context where a significant body of material has already been discovered. Mr Smark submitted in that context that it is not necessary for the defendant to have “absolutely squeezed the lemon dry” in order to make a case on this issue. Apart from the conceded sub-category, I am not persuaded that the plaintiff should be compelled to give additional discovery on those matters. Only sub-category 168(e) will be allowed.

34. The next contested category is 169, again relating to complaints. The plaintiff's response to that category was to say that it does not extend beyond existing categories in relation to which discovery has already been given. In oral submissions, it was stated that there is nothing further to discover under those categories. However, Mr Smark very fairly accepted that the position might appropriately be formalised by including that further category so as to give comfort that nothing has been omitted by oversight. In light of that concession, category 169 will be allowed.

35. The plaintiff does not object to category 170 on the same basis. That category will be allowed.

36. Category 171 seeks "all documents recording the ATO endorsement of the College of [Universal Medicine] as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR), reviews of the endorsement, revoking of the endorsement and the use or distribution of the College’s gift fund”. An exchange during oral submissions revealed that the documents sought relate to an issue not raised on the current pleadings. That category must accordingly be rejected.

37. Categories 172, 173 and 174 were not pressed.

38. Category 175 seeks "all documents recording volunteer labour provided to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's interests, including the recruitment and management of such labour to provide assistance or give presentations at events held by the plaintiff's interests, provide content for [Universal Medicine] publications, or perform any other form of labour from 1 January 2010.”

39. That category overlaps with other categories already discovered. Mr Molomby accepted that this category raises the same issue as category 159, which I have rejected as not being necessary. Category 175 is rejected on the same basis.

40. The next contested category is 176 seeking "all group certificates for employees of the plaintiff's interests and all invoices for contractors to the plaintiff's interests from 1 January 2010". This category is directed at the issue of paid and unpaid labour addressed in a different context above. Mr Smark submitted that the category is too broad as it would cover, for example, an invoice for having a roof fixed. However, as submitted by Mr Molomby, it should not be unduly onerous for the plaintiff to produce group certificates, which are issued once a year and should be held in a single place. Category 176 will be allowed omitting the words “and all invoices for contractors to the plaintiff's interests”.

41. The next contested category is 177 seeking "all documents recording cult allegations about the plaintiff and [Universal Medicine], including any communications between the plaintiff or his agents and individuals, organisations, authorities or publishers, including internet platforms or publishers from 1 January 2000”. As submitted by Mr Smark, documents making allegations of that kind against the plaintiff could not prove the truth of the fact alleged. I do not see any utility in requiring production of any such documents. Category 177 is rejected.

42. Category 178 seeks documents recording complaints to publishers by the plaintiff about publications discussing the plaintiff or his interests. That category was evidently included with the object of establishing that the plaintiff has singled out Ms Rockett and has not taken action in respect of other defamatory publications about him (which might go to the issue of hurt to feelings). There was some discussion during argument as to whether that information might more appropriately be obtained by allowing an interrogatory but, separately, Mr Smark noted that some such documents have already been discovered. I am not persuaded that there is any utility in allowing any further interlocutory step on this issue.

23. There was no objection to category 179.

24. Category 180 seeks; “all recordings, audio, video or transcriptions of the Esoteric Development Group, Ageless Wisdom Teachings and UniMed Saturday presentations from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2015.” The plaintiff complained that this category is oppressive, particularly having regard to the fact that over 200 hours’ worth of recordings have already been discovered. The cost to the plaintiff of producing further material (addressed in an affidavit sworn by his solicitor) would be considerable and plainly raises an issue of proportionality. I am not persuaded that this category is necessary.

25. There was no objection to category 181.

26. Category 182 seeks documents relating to the plaintiff’s email server. The only objection by the plaintiff is that such documents are irrelevant. The defendant’s purpose in seeking them is to test the following claim made in correspondence from the plaintiff’s solicitor (letter dated 7 September 2017):

“Regarding the request for emails on the Universal Medicine server, we confirm our instructions that since around 2010 (and well before the start of this proceeding) it has been the practice of our client and all persons using the Universal Medicine server to delete their emails as a cost-saving measure in light of the annual server provider data storage costs and the volume of emails received by those using the Universal Medicine server.

We are instructed that notwithstanding our client’s general email retention police, our client has kept some emails, largely of a testimonial nature or thanking him for his services. Hence, the emails that were available for production under category 92.”

47. The defendant submits that it is not plausible that so many emails relating to such a broad range of matters would be deleted simply to save space on the server (particularly when what is said to have been kept is selectively of a testimonial nature). I am satisfied that the defendant should be allowed to test that claim. Category 182 will be allowed.

Interrogatories

48. Interrogatory 1 is also directed to the issue of the email server. For the reasons stated above in respect of discovery category 182, this interrogatory will be allowed.

49. Interrogatories 2 to 7 address the plaintiff's reaction to the defendant's publications. The plaintiff objects to all of those interrogatories as either oppressive, irrelevant or unnecessary.

50. Interrogatory 2 addresses steps taken to mitigate damages. I do not see any real utility in requiring the plaintiff to answer that interrogatory.

51. Interrogatory 3 asks about complaints made by the plaintiff or his staff about the defendant. That interrogatory is directed to an imputation of bullying, to which the defendant has pleaded truth (imputation 11P(a)). In response to a complaint that the interrogatory is not limited by reference to time, the defendant agreed to include the time limit "since 1 January 2010". I am satisfied that interrogatory 3 is relevant to the bullying imputation and should be allowed.

52. Interrogatories 4 to 7 were not pressed.

Interrogatories 8 to 14 address the plaintiff's dealings with women. Interrogatory 8 asks the plaintiff to look at photographs contained within the matters complained of and provide information in respect of the females depicted in those photographs. The plaintiff does not object to answering that part of the interrogatory. However, the interrogatory further asks the plaintiff to annex to his answers "all photographs in your possession from those photographic sessions or any other images (video or photographic) of you engaging in or demonstrating hands on esoteric healing practices on women or identify them if they are in your discovery". The plaintiff complains that that part of the question is “irrelevant and oppressive". I disagree. I accept the defendant's submission that the technique of the plaintiff's practice of so-called "hands-on esoteric healing” is at the core of the issues raised in these proceedings. Photographs will provide the most cogent basis for assessing the legitimacy or appropriateness of such techniques as a method of healing.

53. There is no objection to interrogatory 9.

54. Interrogatories 10 and 11 are directed to a technique evidently taught by the plaintiff called "Deeper Femaleness". As with interrogatory 8, the plaintiff does not object to the first part of the question but objects to a request to annex documents recording any workshop or training session. Mr Molomby submitted that any video recording of such a session would be "evocative" of the issue at the core of these proceedings. For the reasons stated above in respect of interrogatory 8, I agree. Interrogatories 10 and 11 will be allowed.

55. Interrogatories 12 and 13 ask "on how many occasions since 1999 have clients disclosed personal information” of a specified nature to the plaintiff. Mr Molomby submitted that those interrogatories would show intimacy and therefore influence or control, supporting the defendant's contention that the plaintiff is a leader of a cult. I am not persuaded that those interrogatories have any utility. While the plaintiff did not take this objection, it is difficult to see how he could provide an accurate answer to either question. Even if he could, the bare statement of a number would be of little assistance in informing the issue referred to. Those interrogatories are rejected.

56. Interrogatory 14 is not pressed.

57. Interrogatories 15 to 26 address the plaintiff's dealings with juveniles. Each of those interrogatories was either not objected to or not pressed. The interrogatories to be answered are interrogatories 15, 17 and 20 to 25.

58. Interrogatory 27 addresses the plaintiff's dealings with cancer patients. The plaintiff objects only to subparagraph 27(a), which asks for the names of patients. Mr Molomby submitted that the relevance of that question lies in the fact that Universal Medicine uses testimonials from named cancer patients. That information in combination with other evidence may show the exercise of influence over those patients. I accept that the plaintiff should answer that question.

59. Interrogatories 28 to 43 are directed to financial dealings. Interrogatory 28 is not pressed. Interrogatory 29 is the interrogatory I have indicated should be allowed in place of discovery category 166 (addressed above). There is no objection to that interrogatory except to subparagraph (d), which asks "who are the trustees and beneficiaries of trusts of which you are a trustee or which you are a beneficiary of?" I see no reason why that information should be carved out from the information the plaintiff is otherwise prepared to provide. Mr Molomby submitted that that information is relevant in order to understand the degree of influence or control exercised by the plaintiff over any trusts. I accept that the plaintiff should answer that question.

60. Interrogatories 30 and 31 are not pressed.

61. Interrogatories 32 and 33 are directed to the issue of unpaid work (considered above in the context of the discovery issues). The defendant submitted that interrogatory 32 is necessary "to quantify the amount of unpaid work from which the plaintiff has benefited". The plaintiff submits that those interrogatories are unnecessary and oppressive. I accept that those interrogatories would be extremely difficult to answer and are oppressive in the required sense. Interrogatories 32 and 33 will not be allowed.

62. Interrogatory 34 is not pressed.

63. Interrogatory 35 is directed to initiatives taken by the plaintiff and his interests to raise funds for commercial expenses since 1 January 2008. The plaintiff submits that this question is irrelevant on the basis that it is too generally expressed and therefore unnecessary and oppressive. I do not accept that submission. In my view, as submitted by the defendant, the objects of the enquiry are easily identifiable. The plaintiff will be directed to answer that question.

64. There is no objection to interrogatory 36.

65. Interrogatories 37 to 41 are not pressed.

66. Interrogatory 42 is directed to gifts and bequests over $1000 made to the plaintiff since 1999. For the reasons given in respect of discovery category 157 above, I consider that the plaintiff should answer that question.

67. Interrogatory 43 is directed to any future gifts or bequests the plaintiff anticipates receiving. The plaintiff objects to that interrogatory on the basis that it is oppressive. I agree. To require the plaintiff to anticipate the position as to future gifts would necessarily entail a measure of speculation.

68. Interrogatories 44 to 48 are directed to the marketing of Universal Medicine’s products and services. There is no objection to any of those interrogatories.

69. Interrogatories 49 to 52 are directed to complaints and investigations. Interrogatory 49 asks whether the plaintiff has ever been assessed for or diagnosed with a mental illness or psychiatric disorder. The plaintiff objects that this interrogatory is unnecessary and oppressive. The defendant submits that it is relevant to imputations 3(m) and 11AH (b), which (in each instance) is an imputation that Mr Benhayon is delusional. The interrogatory is clearly relevant to the truth of that imputation. Interrogatory 49 will be allowed.

70. Interrogatories 50 to 52 are not pressed.

71. Interrogatories 53 to 58 are directed to cult allegations. There is no objection to interrogatory 53.

72. Interrogatory 54 is directed to the number of emails or other forms of message the plaintiff receives on average each day from Universal Medicine students. The plaintiff objects to answering that interrogatory on the basis that it is meaningless, irrelevant, oppressive and unnecessary. The defendant responds that the interrogatory is directed to an article on the plaintiff's website in which he states that he responds to “hundreds of personal emails daily" which, if true, it is submitted would indicate an extraordinary degree of proximity to and influence over his "students". I am satisfied that this interrogatory is relevant to the issues raised by the defence.

73. There is no objection to interrogatory 55.

74. Interrogatories 56 to 58 are directed to "the Science of Initiation" propounded by Universal Medicine. The plaintiff objects that those interrogatories are irrelevant and unnecessary. The defendant points to a document taken from her own discovery (which originated from the plaintiff) which discusses a process of "Initiation". The first three pages of that document were provided with the defendant's submissions. Having considered the content of that document, I am satisfied that questions directed to the so-called process of "Initiation" are clearly relevant to several issues raised by the defence.

75. The document opens with the assertion that “the Path of Initiation is the development of one’s energetic awareness.” It explains that, in the past, “the initiation scales were read more from what our light/connection with God was”, which for example enabled a person like Winston Churchill to stop the axis of evil even though he did not have love in his body. The document continues:

“The path of initiation in the New Era is about LOVE and how much love you actually have in your body, as well as your level of light. In the future the only true teachers will be those who have true fiery-love in their bodies, and thus can inspire others through that love to also re-claim it within themselves.”

76. The document claims that, in the New Era, there are two distinguishing markers for “our initiation”, which are love and light, each of which it is suggested can be measured physically:

“One’s light initiation is the marker of one’s knowing of and relationship with God. It is the light of god in the body and is felt in the lymphatic system. One’s love initiation is the marker of the activity of that light, first for self and then in service. Love is the embodiment of light in the body through the vascular system.”

77. The defendant submitted that questions directed to those apparent teachings are relevant to the contention that the plaintiff asserts a position of dominance in an organisation the defendant seeks to characterise as a cult. It seems likely that answers to those questions will also inform other aspects of the truth defence. I am satisfied that the plaintiff should answer those interrogatories.

78. I direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order by close of business on 27 June 2018 to reflect these reasons.

*********

Decision last updated: 14 December 2018