Chau v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The case of Chau v The Australian Broadcasting Corporation was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute involved an application by the respondents, the publishers of the magazine Eureka Street, to amend their defence to include more extensive particulars of justification relating to imputations of bribery. The applicants, Dr Chau and his wife, opposed the application. The central issue before the court was whether the respondents should be granted leave to amend their defence to include more extensive particulars of justification.

The court considered the principles governing the exercise of discretion to allow amendments to pleadings, as established in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University. The court emphasised that the explanation for the delay in bringing the amendment application must be given by the moving party and may depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the seriousness of the allegations required prompt and proper particularisation of the justification defence to the imputations of bribery. The court was concerned that the respondents had lost an earlier trial date due to the pending determination of their prior unsuccessful application for leave to file an amended defence. The court found that the proposed particulars were highly unlikely to support the admission of evidence that could prove the substantial truth of the imputations of bribery and that the objective facts and materials did not support the imputations.

The High Court dismissed the respondents' application for leave to amend their defence, finding that the explanation for the delay was deficient and that the proposed particulars were unlikely to support the admission of evidence that could prove the substantial truth of the imputations of bribery. The court also noted that the real likelihood was that the applicants' reputation had been adversely affected by the delay and the attempt to further amend the defence, and that there was a human strain on the applicants. The court ordered that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application, amended interlocutory application, and further amended interlocutory application seeking leave to amend the defence.