Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (the appellant) sought to amend its defence in defamation proceedings brought by Mr Manock (the respondent). The original action commenced in March 2004, and an amended defence including fair comment and justification was filed in March 2005. The defence of justification and some particulars of fair comment were struck out by a District Court Master in September 2005, with liberty to replead. Subsequent appeals concerning the defence of fair comment were unsuccessful. An application to amend the defence to replead justification was refused by the Master in February 2008, but this decision was allowed on appeal to a District Court Judge. The appellant then appealed to a single Judge of the Supreme Court, who refused the amendment. The appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court concerned whether the single Judge had erred in interfering with the discretion of the District Court Judge.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the single Judge of the Supreme Court had properly exercised their discretion in refusing to allow the amendment to the defence of justification, considering the principles established in *House v The King* and the factors relevant to significantly delayed applications for amendment as outlined in *Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v ANU*. The court also considered whether the appeal raised a significant question of public interest.

Bleby and White JJ dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Court Judge had taken into account irrelevant matters and failed to consider relevant matters when allowing the amendment, and therefore the single Judge had not erred in exercising their discretion. Gray J, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, reasoning that the appellate Judge had misunderstood when the appellant became aware of the facts supporting its proposed amended defence and that, applying the principles in *Aon Risk Services*, leave to amend should have been granted.

Permission to appeal was granted by the Full Court due to the significant question of public interest involved. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the majority.