Domican v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd

Domican v Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr Domican, against the defendants, Pan Macmillan and Mr Ibrahim. Mr Domican sought damages for defamatory statements made about him in a book published by Pan Macmillan, allegedly authored by Mr Ibrahim. The defendants raised the defences of truth and contextual truth under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), asserting that the statements were substantially true and contextually true, respectively. The plaintiff sought to strike out these defences and the particulars of truth provided by the defendants.

The court was required to determine whether the defences of truth and contextual truth were adequately pleaded, and whether the particulars of truth were sufficient and adequate. The court considered the principles concerning striking out particulars of a pleading, particularly whether a respondent can raise a common law truth defence based on alternative imputations to those pleaded by the applicant. The court also examined whether the contextual imputations were too general or imprecise and whether the particulars of truth were sufficient and adequate to establish the substantial truth of the imputations.

The court found that the defences of truth and contextual truth were not adequately pleaded, and that the particulars of truth were insufficient and inadequate. The court held that the particulars were incapable of establishing the first variant or alternative imputation in the defendants' truth defence and that the second alternative imputation must be struck out for other reasons. The court granted leave for the defendants to file amended defences within four weeks of the date of the judgment, and ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the amended interlocutory application.

The court's decision underscores the importance of properly pleading defences in defamation proceedings, particularly in relation to the defences of truth and contextual truth. The court's consideration of the principles concerning striking out particulars of a pleading and the sufficiency and adequacy of particulars of truth provides useful guidance for lawyers involved in defamation cases. The court's decision also highlights the importance of providing sufficient and adequate particulars of truth to establish the substantial truth of imputations in defamation proceedings.