Bowen v Stott

In the matter of Bowen v Stott, the plaintiff, Sheena Cole Bowen, brought a defamation claim against the defendants, Paul Stott and Lin Van Coppenhagen, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The defendants sought to set aside the default judgments obtained by the plaintiff due to their failure to file a defence within the prescribed time. The court had to decide whether the defendants presented a credible defence demonstrating a real prospect of success, and whether there was any departure from the general rule of not setting aside a regularly entered default judgment. The court considered the defence of qualified privilege and whether it could be extinguished by the alleged malice. The court found that the defendants had a real prospect of success by relying on the defence of qualified privilege, and that the alleged malice was not sufficient to defeat the privilege. Therefore, the interlocutory judgments previously obtained were set aside.