Doe 1 v Dowling

In the matter of Doe 1 v Dowling, the court was asked to consider an application by the plaintiff to strike out the defendant’s defence on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonable defence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Doe 1, brought an action for defamation against the defendant, Dowling, who responded with various defences including absolute privilege, qualified privilege, truth, triviality, and honest opinion. The plaintiff argued that the defences were not viable and that their inclusion would cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the defences disclosed a reasonable defence and whether they had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. Additionally, the court considered whether it should strike out the pleadings and if it was appropriate to make orders for discovery or interrogatories before the pleadings closed. The court examined the defences in light of the principles outlined in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and previous case law.

The court found that the defences did not disclose a reasonable defence and that they had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The court held that the defences were not viable and that the defendant had no reasonable prospect of success. The court exercised its discretion under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to strike out the defences. The court also held that it was inappropriate to make orders for discovery or interrogatories before the pleadings closed.

Accordingly, the court struck out the defendant’s defences and did not permit the defendant to re-plead. The court ordered that the plaintiff’s application for strike out be allowed and that the defendant’s defences be struck out. The court also ordered that the parties were to proceed with the pleadings as if the defences had never been pleaded.